Re: feature/eglot-texi-manual 4725c123f3 2/5: ; eglot.texi: Fix typos and minor inconsistenciesfeature/eglot-texi-manual 4725c123f3 2/5: ; eglot.texi: Fix typos and minor inconsistencies

[Eli Zaretskii]

I don't understand many of these changes.  They seem to be personal
stylistic preferences, in which case please revert them: there's
nothing wrong with alternative stylistic preferences.

> -on.  @xref{Eglot and Buffers}, for more details of what does Eglot
> -management of a buffer entail.
> +on.  @xref{Eglot and Buffers}, for more details of what Eglot
> +management of a buffer entails.

Why this change?

> -packages.  Here are the main features Eglot enables and provides:
> +packages.  These are the main features that Eglot enables and provides:

And this?

> -languages which are only supported by the @code{etags} backend.
> +languages that are only supported by the @code{etags} backend.

And this one?  What's wrong with using "which" in that case?

> -3rd-party completion package, is installed, Eglot enhances it by
> +third-party completion package, is installed, Eglot enhances it by

And what's the problem here?

> -i.e.@: a VCS repository (@pxref{Version Control,,, emacs, GNU Emacs
> +e.g.@: a Git repository (@pxref{Version Control,,, emacs, GNU Emacs
>  Manual}).

This change is for the worse: project.el supports more than just Git.

> -with @kbd{C-u}, it always prompts for the server program, and if
> -invoked with @kbd{C-u C-u}, also prompt for the major mode.
> +with a prefix argument @kbd{C-u}, it always prompts for the server
> +program, and if invoked with @kbd{C-u C-u}, also prompt for the major
> +mode.

What was wrong with the original text here?

>  @item M-x eglot-shutdown
> -Shut down a language server.  This commands prompts for a language
> +Shuts down a language server.  This commands prompts for a language

This is a change for the worst: the first sentence is now incomplete.

>     eglot.texi: Make example more realistic
>     
>     * doc/misc/eglot.texi (Eglot and Buffers): Prefer more realistic
>     *.c instead of *.foo in example.

Why do you think it is "more realistic"?  The whole point of Eglot is
that it's almost agnostic to the source language, so why do we have to
talk about C sources in particular?

>     eglot.texi: Move sentence on LSP Servers earlier
>     
>     * doc/misc/eglot.texi (Setting Up LSP Servers): Move explanation
>     on the (lack of) need for customizing servers earlier.

Please revert that: I see no need to move the description to another
place.  The current text was well thought-of.

Thanks.