From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com>
Subject: Re: Typo in Org Manual
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 04:14:28 +0000
Message-ID: <87zhcs7qe3.fsf@kyleam.com>
References: <87blp9rf6w.fsf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49066)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <kyle@kyleam.com>) id 1jAQrD-00084a-Of
 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 23:14:37 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <kyle@kyleam.com>) id 1jAQrC-0003Ja-MX
 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 23:14:35 -0500
Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:58953)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <kyle@kyleam.com>) id 1jAQrC-00038g-Ck
 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 23:14:34 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87blp9rf6w.fsf@gmail.com>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
 <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
 <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Emacs-orgmode"
 <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
To: sebastian.miele@gmail.com
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

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 =E2=80=98..=E2=80=99.
>>
>> to
>>
>>   You may reference a rectangular range of fields, including the ends,
>>   by specifying two field references connected by two dots =E2=80=98..=
=E2=80=99.
>>
>> ?
>
> 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.