From 8173d06829ba4b6d32b416bc769ab7e9806fb480 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nikodemus Siivola Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:53:47 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] small package lock documentation cleanup "cause result in a..." Feh. Me good english yes. Also mention the compile-time warning for clarity. --- doc/manual/package-locks-extended.texinfo | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/manual/package-locks-extended.texinfo b/doc/manual/package-locks-extended.texinfo index 5f983ec..724437c 100644 --- a/doc/manual/package-locks-extended.texinfo +++ b/doc/manual/package-locks-extended.texinfo @@ -81,9 +81,9 @@ Unless explicitly altered by @code{defpackage}, @findex @sbext{disable-package-locks} @findex @sbext{enable-package-locks} -Lexical bindings or declarations that violate package locks cause -result in a @code{program-error} being signalled at when the form that -violates package locks would be executed. +Lexical bindings or declarations that violate package locks cause a +compile-time warning, and a runtime @code{program-error} when the form +that violates package locks would be executed. A complete listing of operators affect by this is: @code{let}, @code{let*}, @code{flet}, @code{labels}, @code{macrolet}, and -- 1.7.10.4