> > > From 80c6fd67b228ea8685def8ca4305bec9cdd98cd9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > [...] > > +@item -e @var{function} > > +Make @var{function} the @dfn{entry point} of the script. After loading > > +the script file (with @option{-s}) or evaluating the expression (with > > +@option{-c}), apply @var{function} to a list containing the program name > > +and the command-line arguments---the list provided by the > > +@code{command-line} function. > > + > > +A @option{-e} switch can appear anywhere in the argument list, but Guile > > +always invokes the @var{function} as the @emph{last} action it performs. > > +This is weird, but because of the way script invocation works under > > +POSIX, the @option{-s} option must always come last in the list. > > + > > +The @var{function} is most often a simple symbol that names a function > > +that is defined in the script. It can also be of the form @code{(@@ > > +@var{module-name} @var{symbol})}, and in that case, the symbol is > > +looked up in the module named @var{module-name}. > > You inserted a comma here before "@var{symbol})}, and in that case". I > agree that a comma was needed, but would have put it as "@var{symbol})} > and, in that case, the ...". What do you think? >
Is the sentence of the form 1) "A and B" or of the form 2) "A, and some supplemental information about A"? I think it is 2). Then, you are left with the choice of how many commas: 1) "A, and, in that case, B" 2) "A, and in that case, B" 3) "A and, in that case, B" Either choice 1) or 2) gets my vote. Choice 3) is, I think, an error. Another perspective: Re-write the sentence, replacing "and in that case" with "in which case." This should make it clearer that the sentence consists of a main clause and a sub-clause (preceded by a comma), not two main clauses. > > +@table @env > > +@item GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE > > +@vindex GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE > > +This is a flag that can be used to tell Guile whether or not to compile > > +Scheme source files automatically. Starting with Guile 2.0, Scheme > > +source files will be compiled automatically, by default. > > Is it useful to say "Starting with Guile 2.0" in a post-2.0.0 version of > the manual? I think that expression could be deleted now. > That's a consequence of the fact that I looked up what information I could find from the NEWS file, and then used that text as an initial version. I agree that it's not the best solution to the problem, but the problem is "how does the manual convey to long-time Guile users this change in behavior?" I do not have a good solution to that in this brief patch. For now, experienced users will and should rely on the NEWS file to inform them about changes in behavior. ---