Re: master f7b84345f8 1/2: ; * doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi (Editing VC Commands): Fix wording.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 16:46:51 -0700
> 
> Hello Eli,
> 
> Thank you for reviewing the commit.

You are welcome.

> > --- a/doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi
> > +++ b/doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi
> > @@ -270,16 +270,17 @@ with the file's version control type.
> >  @findex vc-edit-next-command
> >  @kindex C-x v !
> >  You can use the @kbd{C-x v !} (@code{vc-edit-next-command}) prefix
> > -command to request an opportunity to edit the VC shell commands that
> > -Emacs will run.  This is primarily intended to make it possible to
> > -access version control system-specific functionality without
> > -complexifying either the VC command set or the backend API.
> > +command to edit the shell command line that VC is about to run.  This
> > +is primarily intended to make it possible to add optional command-line
> > +arguments to VCS commands without unnecessary complications of the VC
> > +command set and its interfaces with the backend.
> 
> I would like to restore the idea that it's about accessing VC
> system-specific features, because adding optional command line arguments
> is merely the means by which they are accessed.  How about:
> 
>     This is primarily intended to make it possible to access version
>     control system-specific functionality, by means of adding optional
>     command line arguments to VCS commands, without unwanted
>     complications of the VC command set and its interfaces with the
>     backend.

The original text ("access version control system-specific
functionality") was too vague, and I attempted to make it more
concrete and clear.  I don't understand why that part is so important
to have it, especially if you agree that the most frequent expression
of "accessing version control system-specific functionality" is to add
optional command-line arguments.  Isn't it clear to any reader that
adding command-line arguments will activate additional functionality?