Re: [DOC] About Lisp Data Types

[Arthur Miller]

Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor
<help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> writes:

> Arthur Miller wrote:
>
>>> The parts that the OP has quoted are really poor, I agree
>>> with him.
>>
>> Njah. This is time to get the Dragon book and read it cover
>> to cover .... just kidding. Chapter 1. introduction would
>> be enough.
>
> It should offer precise definitions of every term it
> introduces

We are in agreement about that one, but probably not abouot what is
unclear :).

>            instead of speaking of what something is
> "primarily" and "only secondarily" compared to "other
> languages" while theorizing what distinctions one "needs to
> emphasize" and what to keep "in the back of one's mind".

On serious side, you can't have every word in a text go to some precise
defintion. Those terms are phrases and they have their own idiomatic
meaning in this context. So is in every text. Consider for example word
"björnstjänst" and it's explanation on Wikipedia:

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rntj%C3%A4nst

Will you ask wikipedia authors to precisely define what they mean with
"välmenad tjänst", "eller i varje fall", or some other part of text not
explicitly explained in the article? Probably not because you are well
aware of what those phrases mean from everyday language. So is with the
manual too; some phrases have to be understood from the context, or form
the everyday language etc. Otherwise manual should be a set of axiomatic
rules expressed in concise mathematical language (isn't Lisp itself such
by the way?). Anyway good luck reading such manual :).