[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#32037: simplify possessive form's "functions' definitions"
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#32037: simplify possessive form's "functions' definitions" |
Date: |
Mon, 02 Jul 2018 18:32:51 +0300 |
> From: Van L <van@scratch.space>
> 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 C@. 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
Thanks, but AFAIK the original wording is perfectly correct English
(if not more correct). Why did you think it needed to be changed?