Re: Comments on TUTORIAL (was: [PATCH] updates to TUTORIAL.cn)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ruijie Yu <ruijie@netyu.xyz>
> Cc: Fuqiao Xue <xfq.free@gmail.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
>  lx@shellcodes.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 13:12:13 +0800
> 
> >>> lines 28-31; 40
> >>> This is a copy of the Emacs tutorial text, customized slightly for
> >>> you.  Later on we will instruct you to try various commands to alter
> >>> this text.  Don't worry if you change this text before we tell you to;
> >>> that is called "editing" and that's what Emacs is for.
> >>> ....
> >>> It is ok to scroll this text in other ways, if you know how.
> 
> >> +这是 Emacs 教程文本的一个经过少量修改的副本。不久后我们会让你尝试不同
> >> +的命令来修改此文本。若你在我们提到这些命令前修改了文本，不要担心；这就
> >> +叫做“编辑”，而这就是 Emacs 存在的根本原因。
> >> +
> >> ....
> >> +若你知道其他移动文本的方式，也可以在这里试试。
> > 这两句话几乎没什么意义.  不如改成说, 请随意在此修改, 这对本教程的实际
> > 文件不会造成任何影响, 下次打开时一切照旧.  或者, 干脆什么都不要写, 越
> > 短越好 -- 新人甚至会因为 TUTORIAL 的篇幅而放弃学习 Emacs.
> >
> > [These sentences do not help.  Rather we should say something like,
> > "please modify this buffer as you wish, it does not affect the actual
> > file."  Or rather, say nothing here because newcomers might stop
> > learning Emacs due to the tutorial's size.]
> 
> I don't know the answer to this, so I want to know what others think.

Think about what, exactly?  If the Chinese text is simply a
translation of the English text, then the above comment seems to be
about the original English text, not about the translation, in which
case it should be discussed separately, not as part of improving the
Chinese translation of the tutorial.  If the Chinese text added some
explanations to the original English text, and the comment is about
those additions, then please tell in English what was added, and we
can then ask for opinions on those additions.

> >>> lines 475-479
> >>> C-_ is an alternative undo command; it works exactly the same as C-/.
> >>> On some text terminals, you can omit the shift key when you type C-_.
> >>> On some text terminals, typing C-/ actually sends C-_ to Emacs.
> >>> Alternatively, C-x u also works exactly like C-/, but is a little less
> >>> convenient to type.
> 
> >> -C-_ 也是撤销命令；它的作用跟 C-/ 一样，但是它比较容易多次输入。在
> >> -某些终端上，输入 C-/ 实际上向 Emacs 发送的是 C-_ 。
> >> -另外， C-x u 和 C-/ 完全一样，但是按起来有些麻烦。
> >> +C-_ 也是撤销命令；它的作用跟 C-/ 一样，但是它比较容易多次输入。在某些
> >> +终端上，你可以不按 shift 键（即 C--）。在某些终端上，输入 C-/ 实际上向
> >> +Emacs 发送的是 C-_ 。另外， C-x u 和 C-/ 完全一样，但是按起来有些麻烦。
> > "但是按起来有些麻烦" 没有意义, 建议删掉.  或者你说, C-x u 是为了方便记
> > 忆 (undo).  这个理由也是 Emacs Reference Manual 上书写的理由.
> >
> > ["but is a little less convenient to type" has little value.
> > Alternatively, we can mention that C-x u helps the user to remember
> > the command: u for "undo".  This reason is also mentioned on Emacs
> > Reference Manual.]
> 
> I found the relevant portion in the manual: it is footnote 1 of (info
> "(emacs) Undo").  I think the author is right, in that we should keep
> the info and the tutorial consistent in this regard -- that is, in the
> tutorial text, instead of mentioning the inconvenience of C-x u, mention
> it as an easy-to-remember, mnemonic keybind.

The tutorial cannot repeat everything the manual says, because there
are unique size restrictions for the tutorial -- it must be short
enough.  So I see no problem with omitting the mnemonic value of
"C-x u".  In any case, this is again a comment to the original English
text, not to the Chinese translation.