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

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 5:22 AM
> From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> To: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>, "rms@gnu.org" <rms@gnu.org>
> Cc: "rpluim@gmail.com" <rpluim@gmail.com>, "emacs-devel@gnu.org" 
> <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> Subject: RE: [External] : Re: emacs-28 b7d7c2d9e9: Add cross-reference to 
> alternative syntaxes for Unicode
>
> > > 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.

There is nothing erudite about e.g.

Besides the fact that there is nothing wrong about formal text and 
standardisation
in style.  Knowing about them and what they mean is even more relevant today.

Having advocated for good writing, I see nothing discrepant regarding its use.

> > 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".
>
>