On 11/30/18 7:50 AM, Brian Inglis wrote:
You previously corrected the code output by hand, but now appear to do so in the Lisp approximation, which means the following description is confusing:
Thanks for catching that. I tried to improve the comment (in a different way) in the attached patch.
For occasional and non-Lispers, the included Emacs Lisp code is non-obvious: it may be more helpful to provide the code in a separate file, which also clearly documents its function in plain language, enhancing understanding and implementation in other languages, and reference that.
In the past I haven't bothered to do that, as it's a pain to distribute ad-hoc files (e.g., we used to have Lisp code for Morocco, then it went away, then it came back). Also, the Lisp code is not intended to be run routinely; it's intended mainly to be documentation for the nearby data. So for now I think I'll stick with tradition and keep the Lisp code in a comment in the data file. That being said, the Lisp code could be clearer and I fussed with it a bit to do that in the attached patch, though I did not take the trouble to write extensive internal documentation.