Re: Patch: Fix typo in org-manual

2022-04-15 Thread Ihor Radchenko
"Cody Harris"  writes:

> I was reading the docs and saw some what looks like some errant
> keystrokes in the manual, so here's a patch =]

Thanks! Applied to main as a0755ebcc.

Best,
Ihor

Applied.




Patch: Fix typo in org-manual

2022-04-08 Thread Cody Harris
I was reading the docs and saw some what looks like some errant keystrokes in 
the manual, so here's a patch =]From 9742aad3f68620cca1d82789fcb0040b6a836e78 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Cody Harris 
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 20:21:25 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] doc/org-manual.org: Fix a typo in the manual

Also automatically fix up a few lines of indentation that had mixed
tabs and spaces.

TINYCHANGE
---
 doc/org-manual.org | 12 ++--
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/org-manual.org b/doc/org-manual.org
index 49d906c27..14fea0f2b 100644
--- a/doc/org-manual.org
+++ b/doc/org-manual.org
@@ -3579,7 +3579,7 @@ replacement text.  Here is an example:
 (setq org-link-abbrev-alist
   '(("bugzilla". "http://10.1.2.9/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=;)
 ("Nu Html Checker" . "https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=%h;)
-	("duckduckgo"  . "https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%s;)
+("duckduckgo"  . "https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%s;)
 ("omap". "http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search?q=%s=1;)
 ("ads" . "https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/q=%20author%3A\"%s\";)))
 #+end_src
@@ -9415,11 +9415,11 @@ the Internet, and outside of business hours, with something like this:
 #+begin_src emacs-lisp
 (defun my-auto-exclude-fn (tag)
   (when (cond ((string= tag "net")
-	   (/= 0 (call-process "/sbin/ping" nil nil nil
-			   "-c1" "-q" "-t1" "mail.gnu.org")))
+   (/= 0 (call-process "/sbin/ping" nil nil nil
+   "-c1" "-q" "-t1" "mail.gnu.org")))
   ((member tag '("errand" "call"))
-	   (let ((hr (nth 2 (decode-time
-	 (or (< hr 8) (> hr 21)
+   (let ((hr (nth 2 (decode-time
+ (or (< hr 8) (> hr 21)
 (concat "-" tag)))
 
 (setq org-agenda-auto-exclude-function #'my-auto-exclude-fn)
@@ -16258,7 +16258,7 @@ Settings]]), however, override everything.
 | ~:html-preamble-format~| ~org-html-preamble-format~|
 | ~:html-preamble~   | ~org-html-preamble~   |
 | ~:html-self-link-headlines~| ~org-html-self-link-headlines~|
-| ~:html-table-align-individual-field~   | ~de{org-html-table-align-individual-fields~   |
+| ~:html-table-align-individual-field~   | ~org-html-table-align-individual-fields~  |
 | ~:html-table-attributes~   | ~org-html-table-default-attributes~   |
 | ~:html-table-caption-above~| ~org-html-table-caption-above~|
 | ~:html-table-data-tags~| ~org-html-table-data-tags~|
-- 
2.32.0



Re: Typo in Org Manual

2020-03-06 Thread Kyle Meyer
Sebastian Miele  writes:

> Kyle Meyer  writes:

>> If we were to simply replace "six" with "nine", I think the
>> description could still be confusing because it's ambiguous whether
>> "between" includes the ends. (I would tend to read the above
>> description as exclusive.)
>
> At least for me, "nine" would not be confusing at all, because among the
> sensible interpretations of the range specification, "nine" uniquely
> identifies the maximally inclusive one.

Fair enough.

> If it were a problem, then the preceding and following examples all have
> the same problem, too, except maybe the hline example.

Hmm, I looked over those before sending the email and didn't find any of
them ambiguous.  Perhaps I'm just inclined to read "between" ambiguously
and gloss over everything else.  Either way...

Later Sebastian Miele  writes:

> Sebastian Miele  writes:
>>
>> But how about instead changing the first sentence of the "Range
>> references" section from
>>
>>   You may reference a rectangular range of fields by specifying two
>>   field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>>
>> to
>>
>>   You may reference a rectangular range of fields, including the ends,
>>   by specifying two field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>>
>> ?
>
> I think even better would be to just add the following after the
> sentence mentioned above:
>
>   The ends are included in the range.

... this sounds good to me.  I went with that, along with replacing
"six" with "nine".

Thanks for the suggestion and for catching the error.



Re: Typo in Org Manual

2020-03-06 Thread Nick Dokos
Sebastian Miele  writes:

> Sebastian Miele  writes:
>>
>> But how about instead changing the first sentence of the "Range
>> references" section from
>>
>>   You may reference a rectangular range of fields by specifying two
>>   field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>>
>> to
>>
>>   You may reference a rectangular range of fields, including the ends,
>>   by specifying two field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>>
>> ?
>
> I think even better would be to just add the following after the
> sentence mentioned above:
>
>   The ends are included in the range.
>
>

Yes, a general statement (outside of this particular example) seems
like a good idea. Then changing the "six" to "nine" does not need any
further elaboration.

-- 
Nick

"There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache
invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors." -Martin Fowler




Re: Typo in Org Manual

2020-03-06 Thread Sebastian Miele
Sebastian Miele  writes:
>
> But how about instead changing the first sentence of the "Range
> references" section from
>
>   You may reference a rectangular range of fields by specifying two
>   field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>
> to
>
>   You may reference a rectangular range of fields, including the ends,
>   by specifying two field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>
> ?

I think even better would be to just add the following after the
sentence mentioned above:

  The ends are included in the range.



Re: Typo in Org Manual

2020-03-06 Thread Sebastian Miele
Kyle Meyer  writes:
>
> Sebastian Miele  writes:
>
> > In an example for Org table range references it says:
> >
> > ‘@2$1..@4$3’   six fields between these two fields (same as ‘A2..C4’)
>
> Oh, that mistake has been around for a long time.
>
> > However, it are nine fields instead of six.
>
> If we were to simply replace "six" with "nine", I think the
> description could still be confusing because it's ambiguous whether
> "between" includes the ends. (I would tend to read the above
> description as exclusive.)

At least for me, "nine" would not be confusing at all, because among the
sensible interpretations of the range specification, "nine" uniquely
identifies the maximally inclusive one.

If it were a problem, then the preceding and following examples all have
the same problem, too, except maybe the hline example.

> How about "nine fields between and including these two fields"? Any
> other suggestions?

In my opinion this is not necessary. The examples (assuming "nine"
instead of "six") make it clear enough, that always the maximally
inclusive sensible interpretation of the range specification is used.

But how about instead changing the first sentence of the "Range
references" section from

  You may reference a rectangular range of fields by specifying two
  field references connected by two dots ‘..’.

to

  You may reference a rectangular range of fields, including the ends,
  by specifying two field references connected by two dots ‘..’.

?



Re: Typo in Org Manual

2020-03-05 Thread Kyle Meyer
Sebastian Miele  writes:

> In an example for Org table range references it says:
>
> ‘@2$1..@4$3’   six fields between these two fields (same as ‘A2..C4’)

Oh, that mistake has been around for a long time.

> However, it are nine fields instead of six.

If we were to simply replace "six" with "nine", I think the description
could still be confusing because it's ambiguous whether "between"
includes the ends.  (I would tend to read the above description as
exclusive.)

How about "nine fields between and including these two fields"?  Any
other suggestions?



Typo in Org Manual

2020-03-04 Thread Sebastian Miele
In an example for Org table range references it says:

‘@2$1..@4$3’   six fields between these two fields (same as ‘A2..C4’)

However, it are nine fields instead of six.



Re: [O] possible typo in org manual

2011-06-06 Thread Giovanni Ridolfi
 On Sat, 4 Jun 2011, Noorul Islam wrote:

 On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, skip scp0...@gmail.com wrote:
  The manual I'm using is here:
  http://orgmode.org/org.html#Working-With-Source-Code
 
  See item 14.2.8.1
  sub-heading: Emacs Lisp evaluation of variables
  in the sample code,
 
  #+begin_src sh :var file-name=(buffer-file-name) :exports both
wc -w $file
  #+end_src
 
  shouldn't
  file-name=(buffer-file-name)
  be
  file=(buffer-file-name)
 
  --Skip.
 
 
 
 But doc/org.texi has the following enty
 
 @example
 #+begin_src sh :var filename=(buffer-file-name) :exports both
   wc -w $filename
 #+end_src
 @end example
 
 I am not sure how frequently changes are pushed to the web server.
 
 Thanks and Regards
 Noorul
 
 
Jude DaShiell jdash...@shellworld.net writes:

 The info pages are a couple versions behind too.

I think that Eric Schulte (CCed ;-), when did the change, forgot to 
update the documentation.

IIRC The web page manual is based on the info file.

Cheers,
Giovanni



[O] possible typo in org manual

2011-06-04 Thread skip
The manual I'm using is here:
http://orgmode.org/org.html#Working-With-Source-Code

See item 14.2.8.1
sub-heading: Emacs Lisp evaluation of variables
in the sample code,

#+begin_src sh :var file-name=(buffer-file-name) :exports both
   wc -w $file
#+end_src

shouldn't
file-name=(buffer-file-name)
be
file=(buffer-file-name)

--Skip.



Re: [O] possible typo in org manual

2011-06-04 Thread Noorul Islam
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, skip scp0...@gmail.com wrote:
 The manual I'm using is here:
 http://orgmode.org/org.html#Working-With-Source-Code

 See item 14.2.8.1
 sub-heading: Emacs Lisp evaluation of variables
 in the sample code,

 #+begin_src sh :var file-name=(buffer-file-name) :exports both
   wc -w $file
 #+end_src

 shouldn't
 file-name=(buffer-file-name)
 be
 file=(buffer-file-name)

 --Skip.



But doc/org.texi has the following enty

@example
#+begin_src sh :var filename=(buffer-file-name) :exports both
  wc -w $filename
#+end_src
@end example

I am not sure how frequently changes are pushed to the web server.

Thanks and Regards
Noorul



Re: [O] possible typo in org manual

2011-06-04 Thread Jude DaShiell
The info pages are a couple versions behind too.

On Sat, 4 Jun 2011, Noorul Islam wrote:

 On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, skip scp0...@gmail.com wrote:
  The manual I'm using is here:
  http://orgmode.org/org.html#Working-With-Source-Code
 
  See item 14.2.8.1
  sub-heading: Emacs Lisp evaluation of variables
  in the sample code,
 
  #+begin_src sh :var file-name=(buffer-file-name) :exports both
wc -w $file
  #+end_src
 
  shouldn't
  file-name=(buffer-file-name)
  be
  file=(buffer-file-name)
 
  --Skip.
 
 
 
 But doc/org.texi has the following enty
 
 @example
 #+begin_src sh :var filename=(buffer-file-name) :exports both
   wc -w $filename
 #+end_src
 @end example
 
 I am not sure how frequently changes are pushed to the web server.
 
 Thanks and Regards
 Noorul