diff: reference_manual.texi minor corrections

[Fergus Henderson]

Zoltan Somogyi <zs at cs.mu.oz.au> writes:

> > Zoltan Somogyi, you wrote:
> > > 
> > > >  The conjunction @samp{(@var{A}, @var{B})} can fail
> > > > -if either @var{A} or @var{B} can fail.
> > > > +if either @var{A} can fail, or if @var{A} can succeed at least once,
> > > > +and @var{B} can fail.
> > > 
> > > I like the original better.
> > 
> > The original was wrong.  (So was the code that implemented it,
> > although I fixed that recently.)
> > This is not just a change in wording, it is a change in meaning.
> > 
> > > If you want to mention the possibility
> > > that A may loop forever, you should mention this explicitly. Your
> > > new text is not allusion enough.
> > 
> > I don't particularly want to mention it.
> > I just want the wording to get the right answer for that case.
>
>I know it was a change in meaning, I just thought the new description
>is bad English, and that the old expression was a better basis for
>a good explanation. How about
>
>	The conjunction @samp{(@var{A}, @var{B})} can fail
>	if either @var{A} or @var{B} can fail, provided @var(A) can succeed.
>	If @var(A) cannot succeed, the conjunction @samp{(@var{A}, @var{B})}
>	can fail if @var{A} can fail; in this cases, whether @var(B) can fail
>	is irrelevant, since @var(B) will not be reached.

I think that version is more verbose than necessary, and I think that
this extra verbosity makes the reference manual less readable.
It is after all a reference manual, not a tutorial.
(If it were a tutorial, I think it would not discuss this point
anyway, since it is not important enough.)

--
Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.oz.au>   |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>   |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh at 128.250.37.3         |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.