bug#40695: [PATCH] ; Fix some typos and doc issues

[Štěpán Němec]

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 16:47:18 +0300
Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> If you prefer to limit the changes to only those necessary for
>> unsplitting the already split occurences, I'll do that.
>
> Either the split already occurs or is close (i.e. the offending text
> is close to the edge of a line.  Otherwise we will have to put all of
> them in @w{..}, and that seems too much.

I rechecked the occurences and tried to remove some of the added @w{}s,
and notably failed with ispell-kill-ispell and ispell-change-dictionary,
both of which are as far from the edges as one can get (the case of
ispell-message was already mentioned in the bug#6411 message), so I can
only reiterate that that rule doesn't seem to be a good one (when
applied to the texi source).

> The "signalled" thing is UK English, and we use US English, so your
> changes are okay.

Yes, my hesitation didn't concern validity of the change, but whether
such changes outweigh the cost to commit history clarity (it's often
inconvenient to have to filter out the typo fixes, let alone mere
grammar changes, when going after substantial changes during blaming
etc.).

> Something like
>
>     List of functions to apply to atomic forms.
>   These are transformer functions applied in the CPS context.

Thanks, adapted as 

  "List of functions to apply to atomic forms.
These are transformer functions applied to atomic forms evaluated
in CPS context."

>> The original sentence sounds weird to me (what does the function really
>> return?), while the new version should be quite clear IMO. There's also
>> checkdoc nagging about `form' not being upper case.
>
> Well, double negation is also to be avoided.  So how about
>
>   Return nil if FORM can yield, non-nil otherwise.

Done, thank you.

Pushed to emacs-27:

2020-03-01T18:50:14+01:00!stepnem@gmail.com
067b070598 (; Fix some typos and doc issues (bug#40695))
https://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/commit/?id=067b070598

-- 
Štěpán