bug#13373: 24.3.50; doc string of `execute-extended-command' is incorrect

[Aaron S. Hawley]

>> 3. The usage in the Emacs manual is "numeric argument", so for better
>> or worse, it seems consistent.
>
> Where do you see "numeric argument" used in the Elisp manual for the doc of
> `e-e-c'?  That doc is in node `Interactive Call'.  It says no such thing, and
> explicitly refers to the raw prefix argument:

The *Emacs* manual uses the term "numeric argument".  It's the name of
the section:

(info "(emacs) Arguments")

> If the Elisp manual did as you say it does, then it too would wrong.  Two 
> wrongs
> are not to be rewarded just because they are "consistent" with each other.

> The main thing "worth fixing" is the misleading statements about the prefix 
> arg.

Again, the user manual introduces them as "numeric arguments".  It's
not as precise as "prefix argument" for the Lisp hackers in the room,
but for user's purposes it is probably helpful to do it this way -- as
long the section is read in its entirety since the second half has all
the special cases.

Numeric arguments, prefix arguments, universal arguments, the use of a
C-u as a terminator in some cases ("terminator argument?")... the
terrain is fraught with peril.  It's an Emacs world, we just live in
it.

-- 
In general, we reserve the right to have a poor
memory--the computer, however, is supposed to
remember!  Poor computer.  -- Guy Lewis Steele Jr.