; Improve wording in documentation of 'not and 'null'

* doc/lispref/control.texi (Combining Conditions):
* doc/lispref/lists.texi (List-related Predicates): Clarify
wording of 'not' vs 'null'.  (Bug#70392)

2 files changed, 5 insertions, 4 deletions

diff --git a/doc/lispref/control.texi b/doc/lispref/control.texi
index 292086ee4e0..a944dad9307 100644
--- a/doc/lispref/control.texi
+++ b/doc/lispref/control.texi
@@ -349,7 +349,8 @@ kinds of multiple conditional constructs.
 This function tests for the falsehood of @var{condition}.  It returns
 @code{t} if @var{condition} is @code{nil}, and @code{nil} otherwise.
 The function @code{not} is identical to @code{null}, and we recommend
-using the name @code{null} if you are testing for an empty list.
+using the name @code{null} if you are testing for an empty list or
+@code{nil} value.
 @end defun
 
 @defspec and conditions@dots{}
diff --git a/doc/lispref/lists.texi b/doc/lispref/lists.texi
index 6ad6c487d0b..2ae755a2f3b 100644
--- a/doc/lispref/lists.texi
+++ b/doc/lispref/lists.texi
@@ -143,9 +143,9 @@ This function is the opposite of @code{listp}: it returns @code{t} if
 @defun null object
 This function returns @code{t} if @var{object} is @code{nil}, and
 returns @code{nil} otherwise.  This function is identical to @code{not},
-but as a matter of clarity we use @code{null} when @var{object} is
-considered a list and @code{not} when it is considered a truth value
-(see @code{not} in @ref{Combining Conditions}).
+but as a matter of clarity we use @code{not} when @var{object} is
+considered a truth value (see @code{not} in @ref{Combining
+Conditions}) and @code{null} otherwise.
 
 @example
 @group