--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
simplify possessive form's "functions' definitions" |
|
Date: |
Tue, 3 Jul 2018 01:11:00 +1000 |
diff --git a/doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi
b/doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi
index be3e938b24..82c49bf693 100644
--- a/doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi
+++ b/doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi
@@ -3028,7 +3028,7 @@ Primitive Functions
@cindex Primitives written in C
All functions are defined in terms of other functions, except for a few
@dfn{primitive} functions that are written in the C programming
-language. When you write functions' definitions, you will write them in
+language. When you write function definitions, you will write them in
Emacs Lisp and use other functions as your building blocks. Some of the
functions you will use will themselves be written in Emacs Lisp (perhaps
by you) and some will be primitives written in address@hidden The primitive
@@ -3179,7 +3179,7 @@ defun
@findex * @r{(multiplication)}
The third line of the example consists of the body of the function
-definition. (Most functions' definitions, of course, are longer than
+definition. (Most function definitions, of course, are longer than
this.) In this function, the body is the list, @code{(* 7 number)}, which
says to multiply the value of @var{number} by 7. (In Emacs Lisp,
@code{*} is the function for multiplication, just as @code{+} is the
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#32037: simplify possessive form's "functions' definitions" |
|
Date: |
Wed, 04 Jul 2018 19:40:38 +0300 |
tags 32037 notabug
thanks
> From: Robert Pluim <address@hidden>
> Cc: Van L <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 21:59:58 +0200
>
> > Thanks, but AFAIK the original wording is perfectly correct English
> > (if not more correct). Why did you think it needed to be changed?
>
> The original is fine. I wish there was less going around changing
> perfectly good sentences in our documentation (as opposed to editing
> for clarity).
Agreed, closing.
--- End Message ---