Re: master baf1a7a4a0: Turn gv-synthetic-place into a function

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 16:36:55 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > > >  And if this is the same, how about
> > > >
> > > >   This function is only useful when used with generalized variables.
> > >
> > > I prefer the preposition "in" to "with" which sounds more vague to me.
> >
> > What does it mean to "use a function in generalized variables"? how do
> > you use a function _in_ a variable?
> 
> A generalized variable is a place (form).  You use a function in a place
> form like you use it in any (normal) form.

"Use in a place form" and "use in a place" are very different.  The
former can be understood and interpreted; the latter is just
confusing, because it uses "place", a common word, in a meaning that
is completely removed from the "usual" one.  I asked you about the
meaning of the former, not the latter.

> > > Also, some people seem to like saying a function "is" a generalized
> > > variable when it has a gv setter.  I'm not sure if they would read your
> > > version as intended.
> >
> > Why not?  For me, using something "with" something else means "in
> > conjunction with".  Does the latter also sound problematic to you (and
> > if so, why)?  If not, maybe having "in conjunction with" could solve
> > the issue?
> 
> I just find "in" more precise: The function (call) is an integral part
> of the place form, so it's "in" it, textually or syntactically.

Its precision matters much less when this stuff is read for the first
time, by someone who doesn't yet understand well enough what is this
about.  What matters then is our ability to explain what we mean
without confusing.

> English is not my first language, so I hope I'm not on a wrong track,
> but for me "in" sounds more appropriate.
> If a user reads "in conjunction with" and doesn't know much about
> generalized variables, she might wonder "Ok, and how?  Can I pass
> generalized variables as arguments?".  The relation is not as clear as
> with "in" IMO.
> 
> I hope you can follow my concerns.  Does it make sense to you?  I want
> to find a wording that potentially leads to as few misinterpretations as
> possible.

How about the below?

  This function is only useful when used in conjunction with
  generalized variables in place forms.