GNU bug report logs - #14492
[PATCH] Bug in Elisp manual

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 14492 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 14492 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Kelly Dean <kellydeanch <at> yahoo.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] Bug in Elisp manual
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:31:06 -0700 (PDT)

Self explanatory.

--- emacs-24.3/doc/lispref/variables.texi
+++ emacs-24.3/doc/lispref/variables.texi
@@ -987,9 +987,9 @@
 (let ((x 0))             ; @r{@code{x} is lexically bound.}
   (setq my-ticker (lambda ()
                     (setq x (1+ x)))))
     @result{} (closure ((x . 0) t) ()
-          (1+ x))
+          (setq x (1+ x)))
 
 (funcall my-ticker)
     @result{} 1
 

Message #8 received at 14492 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Kelly Dean <kellydeanch <at> yahoo.com>
To: 14492 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH2] Re: bug# 14492: Bug in Elisp manual
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 16:06:18 -0700 (PDT)

Here's another one. Patch below.
Also, the {describe-symbols example} xref in that file doesn't work, but I don't know why.

--- emacs-24.3/doc/lispref/functions.texi
+++ emacs-24.3/doc/lispref/functions.texi
@@ -974,15 +974,15 @@
   If you compile the above code, the anonymous function is also
 compiled.  This would not happen if, say, you had constructed the
 anonymous function by quoting it as a list:
 
 @example
 @group
 (defun double-property (symbol prop)
-  (change-property symbol prop (lambda (x) (* 2 x))))
+  (change-property symbol prop '(lambda (x) (* 2 x))))
 @end group
 @end example
 
 @noindent
 In that case, the anonymous function is kept as a lambda expression in
 the compiled code.  The byte-compiler cannot assume this list is a
 function, even though it looks like one, since it does not know that

Message #11 received at 14492 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Kelly Dean <kellydeanch <at> yahoo.com>
Cc: 14492 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#14492: [PATCH2] Re: bug# 14492: Bug in Elisp manual
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 20:35:44 -0400

I notice you've been sending us quite a few things (thanks!).
How's it going with your copyright assignment?

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2012-12/msg00646.html

Message #16 received at 14492-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: 14492-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#14492: [PATCH2] Re: bug# 14492: Bug in Elisp manual
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:26:43 -0400

Version: 24.4

Fixed in emacs-24.

Message #19 received at 14492 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Kelly Dean <kellydeanch <at> yahoo.com>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 14492 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#14492: [PATCH2] Re: bug# 14492: Bug in Elisp manual
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 19:21:26 -0700 (PDT)

Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>> My work is in the public domain, so no copyright assignment is
>> necessary or possible. Since the FSF says that the U.S. Congress
>> claims that my work isn't in the public domain, and the FSF
>> therefore requires assignment, I can't contribute to Emacs.
>
>Have you already discussed this with assign <at> gnu.org?

Yes. The copyright clerk said "placing a work in the public domain is difficult/may not be possible".

>> That's why I've only been sending bugfixes (under the tiny-change
>> limit, so no assignment needed) after learning of this problem.
>
>The tiny change limit is a cumulative one. It doesn't mean we can
>accept an infinite number of tiny changes from you. I think (without
>checking carefully) that you have already reached the limit.
>
>In any case, it's probably better if you don't send patches, just
>clear descriptions of the problem so that someone else can fix it.

A patch is the clearest description; anything else is less clear. Since I fix the bug locally for my own use, I have to make the patch anyway, and apply it locally to a clean copy of Emacs and test it, in order to verify that my description of the bug and solution are right, rather than just being some artifact of my customized environment. It seems rude to send a bug report and say, "here's a bug, and I know how to fix it, but I'm not going to tell you." Besides that, for documentation bugs like 14492, there isn't even a difference between the bug description and the solution.

But I certainly don't want to cause copyright hassles for the maintainers, so if you don't want me to send any more patches, then I won't. Does this mean that I shouldn't report documentation bugs at all? Or is copyright law so insane that there's a legal difference between:
--- emacs-24.3/doc/lispref/functions.texi
+++ emacs-24.3/doc/lispref/functions.texi
@@ -981 +981 @@
-  (change-property symbol prop (lambda (x) (* 2 x))))
+  (change-property symbol prop '(lambda (x) (* 2 x))))

and the English prose, "in the file emacs-24.3/doc/lispref/functions.texi, on line 981, before the parenthesis before the word lambda, there's supposed to be an apostrophe"?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.