[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Documentation for car and cdr
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: Documentation for car and cdr |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:16:10 +0000 (GMT) |
Hi, Thi!
On 25 Jan 2006, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
>Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:
>> Each of these sentences is completely accurate (by virtue of "loosely
>> speaking"), regardless of whether LIST is a list, a dotted pair, or
>> nil.
>blech. placing "loosely speaking" in the docstring decreases
>credibility (take it from a practiced word weasler: those are weasel
>words), and does not clarify anything. that's certainly a bad move.
How would you answer "What's Emacs?". "Loosely speaking, it's a
programmers' editor" is correct, and a good answer. "A programmers'
editor" will raise the hackles of Gnus fans and some professional
writers. "An extensible editing system, programmed in lisp, including
specialized facilities for ..... [ snip next 10 line ]" will bore the
questioner to tears and make him wish he hadn't asked. "It's Emacs!" is
vacuous.
Describing intuitively what car/cdr mean is useful. I think that "car
returns the car" and "cdr returns the cdr" have negative value - they
irritate without enlightening.
>(note: CERTAINLY, not just LOOSELY SPEAKING.)
>this whole thread is populated by people who know what CAR and CDR are.
>people who don't, who *might* be confused, who *may* be offended by such
>crass self-documentation; they won't read this or the docstring anyway!
Again, I disagree. A fledgling Elisp hacker is likely to spend time
reading through existing code. She's likely to expect C-h f to tell her
what the mysterious functions do.
>now, i suppose someone will lark an ostensibly non-expert friend into
>sending a bug report on this. what, is it 1-april already?
I submitted precisely this issue as a bug a little over a year ago. (And
no, I have not communicated with the OP in this thread.) From that
discussion, and this one, it seems clear that people have widely varying
expectations of what doc-strings should be. David K. wants rigour at all
costs; The OP and I want clarity. Most doc strings are rigorous, clear
and helpful at the same time. Why can't those for car and cdr also be
so?
>thi
--
Alan.
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr, (continued)
- RE: Documentation for car and cdr, Drew Adams, 2006/01/26
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr, Miles Bader, 2006/01/25
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr, Miles Bader, 2006/01/25
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr, Lennart Borgman, 2006/01/25
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2006/01/25
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2006/01/25
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr, Karl Chen, 2006/01/25
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/01/25
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/01/25
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr, Miles Bader, 2006/01/26
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2006/01/25
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr, Alan Mackenzie, 2006/01/26
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr, Tomas Zerolo, 2006/01/26
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2006/01/26
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/01/25
- Re: Documentation for car and cdr, Kim F. Storm, 2006/01/25