[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Common Lisp Emulation vs Common Lisp Extensions

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Common Lisp Emulation vs Common Lisp Extensions
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 18:59:44 +0300

> From: Jean-Christophe Helary <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 22:39:46 +0900
> The Elisp Reference points at a "Common Lisp Extensions" document or chapter 
> without specifying where to find that document.
> Cf. p2 of the PDF (Lisp History) and 6 other references in the manual.
> It looks like the correct reference is: "GNU Emacs Common Lisp Emulation" 
> according to:
> http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_mono/cl.html
> The Emacs Manual uses the same reference (p. 526 of the PDF)
> It would be good to fix the two manuals to properly reference the document.

Are you looking at the PDF versions of the manuals, or at HTML
versions?  Each one has a different title name.  The PDF (and the
printed version) uses "Common Lisp Extensions", which is what appears
on the title page of the printed CL library manual.  The HTML version
uses the name of the top node, which is "GNU Emacs Common Lisp

Does this information help to understand the confusion?

> Also, the web page for the GNU Emacs Manual Online uses "GNU Emacs Common 
> Lisp support." to describe the package and the page that is linked to from 
> there is "CL manual".

I see nothing wrong in the reference, it could be a Texinfo problem in
how it processes cross-references for HTML versions.  I also don't see
"GNU Emacs Common Lisp support.", can you point to it more
specifically with a complete URL?

In general, for all of the problems you mention, it is better to
provide more specific references, like the context or the name of the
node/chapter where the reference lives.  Otherwise, it is very hard to
look for these instances.


reply via email to

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