RE: delete-other-frames

[Drew Adams]

>   > 1. If there is only one frame in the discussion, and @var{f}
>   > is a name for it, then "delete the frame, @var{f}" is correct.
> 
> You're right.  I must have been in a daze.

You're human. ;-)

>   > But if there might be more than one frame in the discussion,
>   > and @var{f} is the one we are concerned with at present, then
>   > this is correct: "delete the frame @var{f}".  (Note: no comma.)
>   > And so is this: "delete frame @var{f}".
> 
> Yes.  Exactly.  A comparable example in algebra is "Square the number x."
> 
>   > 2. I think Eli was talking about something different, but
>   > related: the fact that in Emacs doc the name of a parameter
>   > is often chosen to be a type name,
> 
> Grammatically, it does not matter whether the argument's name is f or
> frame.  In the first case, the sentence should be, "delete the frame
> @var{f}", shortened to "delete frame @var{f}".  In the second case,
> the sentence should be, "delete the frame @var{frame}", shortened to
> "delete frame @var{frame}".
> 
> Whether the argument name is the same as the description, or not,
> has no effect.
> 
>                                      and a convention is to
>   > omit the type noun to which the restrictive appositive
>   > applies and let the parameter name stand alone.
> 
>   > IOW, if the name of the individual echoes the name of the
>   > type then we can get by with just the individual name.
> 
> It is grammatical to omit the description of the argument, and use
> just its name.  There must be no article, in this usage.

Right.

>   > Example:
>   > Just "copy FILE to DIRECTORY",
> 
> Here FILE and DIRECTORY are both names of argument values,
> so they must have no articles.
> 
>    "copy F to D"
> 
> is equally grammatical, but it is clear only if the reader already
> knows that F is a file and D is a directory.  Otherwise, we need to
> say so.
> 
>   "copy the FILE to the DIRECTORY"
> 
> is grammatically incorrect because you can't put an article on a name.

Yes.