From e6b4e5ffdf30ef4d63614ccbe952f1efb25096a7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Glenn Morris Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 20:04:47 -0400 Subject: Fix some doc typos * lisp/calendar/todo-mode.el (todo-next-item) (todo-previous-item, todo-toggle-item-header): * lisp/window.el (move-to-window-group-line): * src/editfns.c (Fformat): * test/lisp/calendar/todo-mode-tests.el (todo-test-move-item05): Fix doc typos. ; And in some comments. --- lisp/emacs-lisp/inline.el | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'lisp/emacs-lisp/inline.el') diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/inline.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/inline.el index 00e5e6eb48d..ff27158f836 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/inline.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/inline.el @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ ;; and then M-: (macroexpand-all '(my-test1 y)) RET) ;; There is still one downside shared with the defmacro and cl-defsubst ;; approach: when the function is inlined, the scoping rules (dynamic or -;; lexical) will be inherited from the the call site. +;; lexical) will be inherited from the call site. ;; Of course, since define-inline defines a compiler macro, you can also do ;; call-site optimizations, just like you can with `defmacro', but not with -- cgit v1.2.3