Re: Typo in Org Manual

[Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com>]

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 ‘..’.

?