[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#14802: 24.3.50; (elisp) Multiple Terminals - what is a terminal attr
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#14802: 24.3.50; (elisp) Multiple Terminals - what is a terminal attribute? |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:52:26 +0200 |
> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:27:58 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 14802@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> > I really don't understand the purpose of this bug report, because
> > this very node is the answer to all your questions and gripes. It
> > includes:
> >
> > . a full list of the attributes of a terminal object (directly
> > below the single sentence you cited in your report)
> > . documentation of functions that access those attributes, and
> > . references to other nodes where related features and issues are
> > described
>
> So you _are_ saying that "terminal attribute" is a term and concept
> being introduced, and we are not just using the English word
> "attribute" in a general sense.
It's not a term or concept, no. It's a word.
> In that case, please put it in quotes, as we usually do for a term
> introduction.
It's not a term.
> And, as this bug report requests, say something about what it is, if
> you can - what the term means. Listing values is not really a
> substitute for that.
Yes, it is. Because it's not a term.
> > I see nothing wrong with the word "attribute". In this very manual,
> > we have:
> >
> > . text attributes
> > . face attributes
> > . file attributes
> > . package attributes
> > . process attributes
> >
> > What's wrong with having "terminal object attributes"?
>
> Nothing. Say what you mean by the term, as we do for each of
> the others you cited.
We don't.
> And index it.
It's not a term, so no need to index it.
> Or follow `i package attribute', to see:
>
> Each package (whether simple or multi-file) has certain
> "attributes":
Which is exactly what we say about terminal attributes.
> (That one is a minimal description - it just introduces particular
> attributes without saying what is meant by the term. But at least
> it introduces the term explicitly.)
It's not a term.
> BTW, "attributes of text" is in the index, but "text attribute"
> should also be added.
Yes, we should also index "text", and perhaps also "index", because
otherwise who knows what these mean?
> * The term "file attribute" also should be introduced explicitly,
> in node `File Attributes'. E.g.:
>
> ...detailed information about a file, including the owner and
> group numbers, the number of names, the inode number, the size,
> and the times of access and modification.
>
> Add something like this: `These characteristics are referred to as
> "file attributes".'
>
> * "Process attribute" is also not introduced explicitly, in node
> `System Processes'. Also, although function `process-attributes'
> is indexed, `process attribute' is not.
Like I said: terminal attributes are not special.
Closing, as there's nothing more to be said here, and no bug anywhere
in sight.