emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#47416: closed (Strange sentence in documentation of 'insert-file-con


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: bug#47416: closed (Strange sentence in documentation of 'insert-file-contents')
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 08:06:02 +0000

Your message dated Sat, 27 Mar 2021 11:05:12 +0300
with message-id <83zgypnhs7.fsf@gnu.org>
and subject line Re: bug#47416: Strange sentence in documentation of 
'insert-file-contents'
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #47416,
regarding Strange sentence in documentation of 'insert-file-contents'
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
47416: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=47416
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Strange sentence in documentation of 'insert-file-contents' Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 02:12:50 +0800
The last paragraph/sentence in the documentation of 'insert-file-contents' is:

> In addition, this function decodes the inserted text from known formats
> by calling `format-decode', which see.

It looks like there is something wrong about this sentence.

"... which see." — See what?

The sentence was introduced by commit bb085aed9593 (2012-12-21).



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#47416: Strange sentence in documentation of 'insert-file-contents' Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 11:05:12 +0300
tags 47416 wontfix
thanks

> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 07:09:26 +0000
> From: Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org>
> cc: 47416@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> 
> >> What about replacing "which see" with "quod vide"?  It's not longer 
> >> (eight letters and one space), and is easier to look up than both 
> >> "which see" and "q.v.".
> >
> > ISTR that past discussions concluded that q.v. would be even more 
> > cryptic.  With "which see", at least native English speakers and those 
> > who are used to scientific literature would immediately understand what 
> > it means.
> 
> The only thing I see in that discussion (bug#28790) is: ""Quod vide" (qv) 
> is arguably more conventional, but for those who haven't encountered the 
> abbreviation or learned its meaning, it's a much tougher nut to crack." 
> So it's about the abbreviation, not about the expression in full.

That's your interpretation.

Anyway, we already had this discussion, so I'm closing this bug
report.


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]