[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: doc of eval-defun (C-M-x)

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: doc of eval-defun (C-M-x)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:08:37 +0300

> From: "Drew Adams" <address@hidden>
> Cc: <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:19:28 -0700
> As to explaining why it should be indexed, that explanation is now
> irrelevant, unfortunately, since RMS has said:
> > We don't use the index that way.
> Nevertheless, FWIW, my thinking was that, since `eval-defun' is discussed in
> that node, and this use of `eval-defun' is as common as the `edebug' use
> (IMO), it would be good to help readers find the discussion of `eval-defun'
> in the context of `defvar' and `defcustom' (and `defface' as well). We index
> the edebug discussion of `eval-defun'; we should also index the use with
> `C-M-x', which is just as common.

I'm not sure I understand what Richard meant by ``use the index that
way'', but let me give you my personal perspective, FWIW: we do not
index each and every instance where a certain symbol is mentioned.  We
always index the instance where it is explained in the most detailed
way, and then additionally index select other places (appropriately
qualified, as in "foo (and bar)") where it is mentioned in the context
of some other feature, if those places reveal something important that
isn't covered in the locus of the main documentation.

So the question is: what do those two nodes say about `eval-defun'
that its main documentation in the Emacs user manual does not?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]