Re: [Geiser-users] Corrections for Geiser/doc/parens.texi

[Jose A. Ortega Ruiz]

Again, your suggestions applied, with just a couple exceptions:

On Mon, Jan 10 2011, Mark Harig wrote:


[...]

> --- Texinfo source:
>
> Geiser's support for writing Scheme code adds to Emacs'
> @code{scheme-mode}, rather than supplanting it; and it does so by means
> of a minor mode (unimaginatively dubbed @code{geiser-mode}) that defines
> a bunch of new commands to try and, with the help of the same Scheme
> process giving you the REPL, make those Scheme buffers come to life.
>
> Suggestion:
>
> Do not "try AND make."  Instead, "try TO make," that is, "...defines a
> bunch of new commands to try to...make..."  Or, delete the words "try
> and" so that the statement is "...defines a bunch of new commands to
> make, with the help..., those Scheme buffers..."

As you know, "try and" is a correct, if informal, alternative to "try
to". Since the manual's overall tone is deliberately informal, i think i
prefer to keep "try and".

> --- Texinfo source:
>
> @cindex switching schemes
> If for some reason you're not happy with the Scheme implementation that
> Geiser has assigned to your file, you can change it with @kbd{C-c C-s},
> and probably take a look at @address@hidden,,the previous
> subsection}, the previous subsection} to make sure that Geiser doesn't
> get confused again.
>
> Correction:
>
> 1) The anchor that this paragraph's reference refers to appears to be
>   the same section that the reader has just read, that is,
>   `switching-repl-buff'.  Another anchor is needed near the beginning
>   of the subsubheading "How Geiser associates a REPL...," so that the
>   cross-reference can refer to it instead, correct?
>
> 2) The clause that began with "...and probably take a look..." does
>   not have a subject: "...and you should probably take a look..."

I'm not sure about this: the sentence takes the form "You can do A and
probably B", which elides the subject it its second clause and sounds
correct to me: isn't that the case? Or perhaps you think the wording is
not clear enough?

Cheers,
jao
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?