|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | Re: emacs-27 561e9fb: Improve documentation of project.el commands |
Date: | Mon, 23 Mar 2020 18:40:39 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 |
On 23.03.2020 16:29, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
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'm rather against this part because it brings in an inaccuracy as well: all project commands work on arbitrary kinds of files. Not just source files, but documentation, build configuration, etc.
And making it seem like they handle only a subset of what they actually do doesn't sound "lucrative" to me.
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.
That makes an assumption that the reader is a programmer.
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?
True.
Would "directory tree hierarchy" solve your problems here?
It's still a more complex explanation than I would choose. But please never mind me here, in the end you probably know your the audience (the people who read the manuals) better.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |