Hello, On 2025-12-16 12:15, Max Nikulin wrote: > The word "format" is too generic while "printf" is quite precise for > those who are familiar with this kind of mini-language. > --8<-- > I am surprised that associative references to printf (as the name of > formatting DSL) was completely broken. I would not complain if elisp > `format' were used *in addition to* "printf", not *instead of it*.
Thanks for this perspective Max, I hadn’t considered how dropping ‘printf’ in the manual could obscure things for those already familiar. Mentioning both sounds like a good compromise; how about ‘format’ in the manual text and we restore a footnote to explain the connection? On 2025-12-15 12:00, Thomas S. Dye wrote: > Also, if 'format' is not exactly 'printf', then the use of 'printf' > instead of 'format' in the manual misleads the user. Yes exactly, this ambiguity is all I was trying to clear up. On 2025-12-15 12:06, Christian Moe wrote: > it would be helpful if the manual also referred to the docstring of > format or to [[info:elisp#Formatting Strings][elisp#Formatting > Strings]] for details on how to construct format specifications. +1 If we agree on these points I can submit a further patch. Best, -- Jacob S. Gordon [email protected] Please avoid sending me HTML emails and MS Office documents. https://useplaintext.email/#etiquette
