* Typo in Org Manual
@ 2020-03-04 13:32 Sebastian Miele
2020-03-06 4:45 ` Kyle Meyer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Miele @ 2020-03-04 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
In an example for Org table range references it says:
‘@2$1..@4$3’ six fields between these two fields (same as ‘A2..C4’)
However, it are nine fields instead of six.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Typo in Org Manual
2020-03-04 13:32 Typo in Org Manual Sebastian Miele
@ 2020-03-06 4:45 ` Kyle Meyer
2020-03-06 9:43 ` Sebastian Miele
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kyle Meyer @ 2020-03-06 4:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sebastian.miele, emacs-orgmode
Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com> writes:
> In an example for Org table range references it says:
>
> ‘@2$1..@4$3’ six fields between these two fields (same as ‘A2..C4’)
Oh, that mistake has been around for a long time.
> However, it are nine fields instead of six.
If we were to simply replace "six" with "nine", I think the description
could still be confusing because it's ambiguous whether "between"
includes the ends. (I would tend to read the above description as
exclusive.)
How about "nine fields between and including these two fields"? Any
other suggestions?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Typo in Org Manual
2020-03-06 4:45 ` Kyle Meyer
@ 2020-03-06 9:43 ` Sebastian Miele
2020-03-06 9:54 ` Sebastian Miele
2020-03-07 4:14 ` Kyle Meyer
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Miele @ 2020-03-06 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kyle Meyer; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> writes:
>
> Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > In an example for Org table range references it says:
> >
> > ‘@2$1..@4$3’ six fields between these two fields (same as ‘A2..C4’)
>
> Oh, that mistake has been around for a long time.
>
> > However, it are nine fields instead of six.
>
> If we were to simply replace "six" with "nine", I think the
> description could still be confusing because it's ambiguous whether
> "between" includes the ends. (I would tend to read the above
> description as exclusive.)
At least for me, "nine" would not be confusing at all, because among the
sensible interpretations of the range specification, "nine" uniquely
identifies the maximally inclusive one.
If it were a problem, then the preceding and following examples all have
the same problem, too, except maybe the hline example.
> How about "nine fields between and including these two fields"? Any
> other suggestions?
In my opinion this is not necessary. The examples (assuming "nine"
instead of "six") make it clear enough, that always the maximally
inclusive sensible interpretation of the range specification is used.
But how about instead changing the first sentence of the "Range
references" section from
You may reference a rectangular range of fields by specifying two
field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
to
You may reference a rectangular range of fields, including the ends,
by specifying two field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Typo in Org Manual
2020-03-06 9:43 ` Sebastian Miele
@ 2020-03-06 9:54 ` Sebastian Miele
2020-03-06 18:04 ` Nick Dokos
2020-03-07 4:14 ` Kyle Meyer
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Miele @ 2020-03-06 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kyle Meyer; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com> writes:
>
> But how about instead changing the first sentence of the "Range
> references" section from
>
> You may reference a rectangular range of fields by specifying two
> field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>
> to
>
> You may reference a rectangular range of fields, including the ends,
> by specifying two field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>
> ?
I think even better would be to just add the following after the
sentence mentioned above:
The ends are included in the range.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Typo in Org Manual
2020-03-06 9:54 ` Sebastian Miele
@ 2020-03-06 18:04 ` Nick Dokos
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Nick Dokos @ 2020-03-06 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com> writes:
> Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> But how about instead changing the first sentence of the "Range
>> references" section from
>>
>> You may reference a rectangular range of fields by specifying two
>> field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>>
>> to
>>
>> You may reference a rectangular range of fields, including the ends,
>> by specifying two field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>>
>> ?
>
> I think even better would be to just add the following after the
> sentence mentioned above:
>
> The ends are included in the range.
>
>
Yes, a general statement (outside of this particular example) seems
like a good idea. Then changing the "six" to "nine" does not need any
further elaboration.
--
Nick
"There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache
invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors." -Martin Fowler
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Typo in Org Manual
2020-03-06 9:43 ` Sebastian Miele
2020-03-06 9:54 ` Sebastian Miele
@ 2020-03-07 4:14 ` Kyle Meyer
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kyle Meyer @ 2020-03-07 4:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sebastian.miele; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com> writes:
> Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> writes:
>> If we were to simply replace "six" with "nine", I think the
>> description could still be confusing because it's ambiguous whether
>> "between" includes the ends. (I would tend to read the above
>> description as exclusive.)
>
> At least for me, "nine" would not be confusing at all, because among the
> sensible interpretations of the range specification, "nine" uniquely
> identifies the maximally inclusive one.
Fair enough.
> If it were a problem, then the preceding and following examples all have
> the same problem, too, except maybe the hline example.
Hmm, I looked over those before sending the email and didn't find any of
them ambiguous. Perhaps I'm just inclined to read "between" ambiguously
and gloss over everything else. Either way...
Later Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com> writes:
> Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> But how about instead changing the first sentence of the "Range
>> references" section from
>>
>> You may reference a rectangular range of fields by specifying two
>> field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>>
>> to
>>
>> You may reference a rectangular range of fields, including the ends,
>> by specifying two field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>>
>> ?
>
> I think even better would be to just add the following after the
> sentence mentioned above:
>
> The ends are included in the range.
... this sounds good to me. I went with that, along with replacing
"six" with "nine".
Thanks for the suggestion and for catching the error.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-03-07 4:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-03-04 13:32 Typo in Org Manual Sebastian Miele
2020-03-06 4:45 ` Kyle Meyer
2020-03-06 9:43 ` Sebastian Miele
2020-03-06 9:54 ` Sebastian Miele
2020-03-06 18:04 ` Nick Dokos
2020-03-07 4:14 ` Kyle Meyer
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).