> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:38:23 -0600 (CST) > From: Luc Teirlinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Sorry, I mistakenly used the word "file" where "buffer" was meant.
I understood that, and this is why I objected to mentioning modified files in the doc string. > Of course, the option has nothing to do with modified buffers either, > but it is exactly the purpose of the patch to point this out. I'm certain that you didn't mean to mention something that is unrelated to the option, as the above sentence seems to imply. > "on user input" could be misinterpreted as meaning "after you modify > the buffer" If ``user input'' is ambiguous, it would be okay to explain in more clear manner what user input means. > and "checking files" could be misunderstood as implicitly > meaning to revert them It would be okay to explain that as well, so that the confusing text is replaced with a more clear one. But mentioning modified buffers is not the way to make these explanations more clear, IMHO. On the contrary, it might make things more confusing, since it makes the doc string less self-contained. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
