From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#1947: 23.0.60; Please document use of `dired' with an explicit file list Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:07:23 -0700 Message-ID: <83FF5F0BF42A4CBE9E8599558045F633@us.oracle.com> References: <007e01c9799c$d6bdecc0$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> <0D8BD9F7F323447A9E4083525EC00174@us.oracle.com> <8362nani2p.fsf@gnu.org> <67F360FF8E7F49E582A886209C30DC46@us.oracle.com> <831uxynfg7.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1310334123 26280 80.91.229.12 (10 Jul 2011 21:42:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:42:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: larsi@gnus.org, kevin.d.rodgers@gmail.com, 1947@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 10 23:41:57 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg1lE-0001r7-Tu for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:41:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41273 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg1lD-0006Vh-Qo for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:41:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59619) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg0IO-0008DB-1N for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:08:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg0IM-0004yM-Dx for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:08:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:47477) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg0IM-0004y8-3i for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:08:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg0IL-00057t-NP; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:08:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:08:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 1947 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix Original-Received: via spool by 1947-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B1947.131032847219690 (code B ref 1947); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:08:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 1947) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2011 20:07:52 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg0IB-00057X-HQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:07:51 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg0I7-00057J-Tn for 1947@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:07:48 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p6AK7dO2029453 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:07:41 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6AK7cB6005699 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:07:39 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt101.oracle.com (abhmt101.oracle.com [141.146.116.53]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p6AK7XqG007066; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:07:33 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.32.168) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:07:33 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <831uxynfg7.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: Acw/MTV56EJumivZQAiMjsFXpM89qwABMlqQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090207.4E1A068D.00CD:SCFMA922111,ss=1,re=-4.000,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:08:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:48512 Archived-At: > > you are arguing against a straw man.... > > Speak not in useless generalities, please. > > Abusive as usual... You are making an ad hominem attack. Arguments about the bug report, please. I'm sorry if you take offense, but pointing out that your argument was an unhelpful generality unrelated to the bug report or to any of the arguments advanced to support it is _not_ abuse. Perhaps you really thought that I argued that everything in every doc string must also be in the manual. But I doubt it. You've said similar things before (over and over, in fact), and each time I've pointed out that I haven't made such a claim. I think you know full well by now that this is a straw man argument you're erecting. But whether you recognized it before or not, please recognize now that I did not argue any such thing, and that your countering such a nonexistent claim is irrelevant, distracting, and unhelpful. Yes, not everything in every doc string belongs also in the manual. So what? What about _this_ particular feature? You might not like having it pointed out that your argument does not address the issue, but pointing that out is neither ad hominem nor irrelevant. It's trying to get back on track, to this particular issue. I'm sorry if you feel hurt or angry. Please relax. Try not to be so personally close to your arguments. It's not about you, or me; there is nothing personal here. We all make irrelevant arguments sometimes. Let's keep the discussion on track: it's about the bug report. Give some arguments why this particular feature should not be documented in the manual, please. We should all be trying to help the users here; that's all. We have 20 (!) nodes in the Emacs manual about Dired. I feel that this relatively unknown feature is an important (useful) Dired feature, worth pointing out somewhere among those 20 sections. If someone wants to learn about particular Dired features (there are many), s?he will not necessarily consult only the `dired' doc string. S?he will sometimes consult the manual first, or instead. You say that users "are supposed to" consult both. Fine, but a user will not necessarily look to the doc string for info about particular Dired features - and if s?he does s?he will be quite disappointed in general. Not to mention that users do not always do what you might think they are "supposed to" do. It's about helping users get information that we think could be useful to them. I think this particular info is very useful - and not at all obvious. You are free to disagree, and that's where I would like to see arguments. Let us know why this info is not something we should be communicating better.