[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: emacs-27 561e9fb: Improve documentation of project.el commands
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: emacs-27 561e9fb: Improve documentation of project.el commands |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Mar 2020 16:29:11 +0200 |
> Cc: address@hidden
> From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 23:24:13 +0200
>
> > Yes, I was aware of that. But since saying that a project is a
> > collection of arbitrary files would make the issue harder to
> > understand,
>
> Regardless of how we define a project, this heading can say "Commands
> for handling files in a project" without a loss of clarify, I believe.
It isn't about clarity, I think, it's about making the feature less
abstract and more lucrative to our audience.
> > I decided to compromise, as I believe currently no one
> > really uses this for non-program files. If this ever becomes a
> > practical problem, we can always rephrase.
>
> You're probably responding to my second quote here. But why not say
> "Command for handling files in a project"? Again, no real loss of
> clarity, this sentence is not a definition.
For the same reason: to be more attractive to the reader.
> >> And is "hierarchy of directories" a better term than "directory tree"?
> >
> > I think it's the same thing. Wed use both interchangeably in our
> > documentation. Why, you think "directory tree" will be easier to
> > understand or something?
>
> This choice of words gives me a somewhat more complicated mental image,
> like a sparse collection of subdirectories, where some are included, and
> some are not. Which kind of comes out to the same thing, but in a more
> complex way.
That's not what I had in mind, but these commands do support sparse
trees as well: it's all about what are "the project files", isn't it?
Would "directory tree hierarchy" solve your problems here?