RE: [External] : Re: emacs-28 b7d7c2d9e9: Add cross-reference to alternative syntaxes for Unicode

[Drew Adams]

> > From: Richard Stallman 
> > We try to avoid the Latin abbreviations (such as "e.g.") that used to
> > be customary in erudite writing.  Many readers don't know them.
> > It is better to say "such as" instead.
> 
> We use "such as" and "like" and "for example" and others, but we also
> use "e.g.".  I find nothing wrong with that; technical literature out
> there is full of those, and people who use and develop software should
> be familiar with this abbreviation.  (And if they aren't, there's
> always Wikipedia, and our Glossary also explains it.)  That is part of
> everyone's education, if you will.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I refuse to give in to such "winds of change".  Where
> it feels natural to say "e.g.", we will not avoid saying that just
> because someone might need to go look it up.  Of course, we shouldn't
> use it too much: for example, using more than one in places too close
> to one another should be definitely avoided.

FWIW, I agree with Eli here (and Po Lu).

Pretty much everyone who understands most of the
common words used in our doc understands "e.g."
(and "etc."). That's not a reason to overuse such
abbreviations.  It's a reason not to overly avoid
their use.
___

It's more important to be sure to use "such as"
and "like" correctly than it is to avoid "e.g.".

Unfortunately, readers won't necessarily get the
difference.  "such as X" includes X.  "like X"
doesn't necessarily include X - and X need not
even be an includable value - it could be a
pattern/exemplar that describes possible values.
___

On the other hand, there are plenty of people who
confuse "i.e.", thinking it means the same as
"e.g.".  I, for one, avoid using "i.e.", in favor
of "that is".