Re: Common Lisp Emulation vs Common Lisp Extensions

[Jean-Christophe Helary]

Thank you Eli for the reply.
        
> 2016/05/29 0:59、Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> のメール：
> 
>> From: Jean-Christophe Helary <address@hidden>
>> Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 22:39:46 +0900
>> 
>> The Elisp Reference points at a "Common Lisp Extensions" document or chapter 
>> without specifying where to find that document.
>> 
>> Cf. p2 of the PDF (Lisp History) and 6 other references in the manual.
>> 
>> It looks like the correct reference is: "GNU Emacs Common Lisp Emulation" 
>> according to:
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_mono/cl.html
>> 
>> The Emacs Manual uses the same reference (p. 526 of the PDF)
>> 
>> It would be good to fix the two manuals to properly reference the document.
> 
> Are you looking at the PDF versions of the manuals,

As I wrote, I am using the PDF version of the Elisp Reference and of the Emacs 
Manual.

> or at HTML
> versions?

There is no PDF version for the CL, so I gave the URL.

>  Each one has a different title name.  The PDF (and the
> printed version) uses "Common Lisp Extensions", which is what appears
> on the title page of the printed CL library manual.

When I check here:
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/cl.html

I don't find anything but an HTML version for the CL library. Where did you get 
your printed version ?

>  The HTML version
> uses the name of the top node, which is "GNU Emacs Common Lisp
> Emulation".

Indeed, and the table of contents for info gives me "Partial Common Lisp 
support for Emacs Lisp."

In the Elisp nodes I get "See Lists as Sets(cl)" when in the PDF it is "See 
Section “Lists as Sets” in Common Lisp Extensions."

> Does this information help to understand the confusion?

Definitely. It is a serious mess :)

> 
>> Also, the web page for the GNU Emacs Manual Online uses "GNU Emacs Common 
>> Lisp support." to describe the package and the page that is linked to from 
>> there is "CL manual".
> 
> I see nothing wrong in the reference, it could be a Texinfo problem in
> how it processes cross-references for HTML versions.  I also don't see
> "GNU Emacs Common Lisp support.", can you point to it more
> specifically with a complete URL?

http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/

Check the description for "CL".

> In general, for all of the problems you mention, it is better to
> provide more specific references, like the context or the name of the
> node/chapter where the reference lives.  Otherwise, it is very hard to
> look for these instances.

I understand. Sorry for the confusion.

In the end, it still seems to me that we should have a better reference system 
and that the media (PDF/info/HTML/print) should not modify the way the 
reference looks, only the way it is accessed (links for info/html/pdf 
eventually, formal reference for pdf/print).


On a separate note, now that I am checking the info system, I see that the info 
root menu is not very helpful either.

For exemple, instead of having:

Emacs
* Org Mode              Outline-based notes management and organizer
* Emacs                 The extensible self-documenting text editor.

etc.

Wouldn't it be better to have the actual name of the nodes instead of an 
abridged name ?

When I open "Org Mode", I get:

(org)Top                                                                        
                                               

Org Mode Manual
***************

and below that:

* Menu:

* Introduction          Getting started
* Document structure    A tree works like your brain

Where "Introduction", "Document structure" etc are all the names of their 
respective nodes.

If we applied that to the info root menu we'd have:

Emacs
* Org Mode Manual              Outline-based notes management and organizer
* The Emacs Editor                 The extensible self-documenting text editor.
* The GNU Emacs FAQ             Frequently Asked Questions about Emacs.

and eventually:

* GNU Emacs Common Lisp Emulation

instead of "CL".

Of course that uses a lot more space than the current state of affairs, but 
that could suggest manual writers to adopt a standard when they name their 
manuals.


Jean-Christophe