[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: emacs-27 561e9fb: Improve documentation of project.el commands

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: emacs-27 561e9fb: Improve documentation of project.el commands
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 16:29:11 +0200

> Cc: address@hidden
> From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 23:24:13 +0200
> > Yes, I was aware of that.  But since saying that a project is a
> > collection of arbitrary files would make the issue harder to
> > understand,
> Regardless of how we define a project, this heading can say "Commands 
> for handling files in a project" without a loss of clarify, I believe.

It isn't about clarity, I think, it's about making the feature less
abstract and more lucrative to our audience.

> > I decided to compromise, as I believe currently no one
> > really uses this for non-program files.  If this ever becomes a
> > practical problem, we can always rephrase.
> You're probably responding to my second quote here. But why not say 
> "Command for handling files in a project"? Again, no real loss of 
> clarity, this sentence is not a definition.

For the same reason: to be more attractive to the reader.

> >> And is "hierarchy of directories" a better term than "directory tree"?
> > 
> > I think it's the same thing.  Wed use both interchangeably in our
> > documentation.  Why, you think "directory tree" will be easier to
> > understand or something?
> This choice of words gives me a somewhat more complicated mental image, 
> like a sparse collection of subdirectories, where some are included, and 
> some are not. Which kind of comes out to the same thing, but in a more 
> complex way.

That's not what I had in mind, but these commands do support sparse
trees as well: it's all about what are "the project files", isn't it?

Would "directory tree hierarchy" solve your problems here?

reply via email to

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