3
\$\begingroup\$

I was reading a question tagged with both and , and noticed the guidance for both was the same. It seems to me that could be useful for non-Lisp code (e.g. language extensions, or or code to interoperate with an Emacs mode), so I edited it.

But unbeknownst to me (and unnoticed by me) that meant I was actually editing (wrongly). Can someone please reject that edit (and if possible, unmerge the two tags)?

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

The tags are synonyms, the question must have predated the synonymization otherwise it couldn't have been tagged with both.

Feel free to edit the redundant tag out of the post.

The tags were made synonyms for a reason - I'm not familiar with either tech, but if a solid case can be made for de-synonymization then it should be discussed on a dedicated meta post.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ The tags are synonyms because elisp is the extension language for emacs. Much of the editor functionality is implemented in elisp so when you talk about one you usually talk about the other. \$\endgroup\$ – 1201ProgramAlarm Apr 9 '18 at 16:07
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @1201ProgramAlarm so, a solid case for de-synonymization has two strikes against it from the get go then :) \$\endgroup\$ – Mathieu Guindon♦ Apr 9 '18 at 16:08
3
\$\begingroup\$

Your edit is now rejected.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .