From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#46627: [External] : bug#46627: [PATCH] Add new help command 'describe-command' Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 17:07:56 +0200 Message-ID: <83tuq5xxv7.fsf@gnu.org> References: <835z2o4fes.fsf@gnu.org> <83blcezntj.fsf@gnu.org> <83wnv2xyau.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2714"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, stefan@marxist.se, rms@gnu.org, 46627@debbugs.gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 21 16:10:39 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lDqNb-0000bG-Ht for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 16:10:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42546 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDqNa-0000EX-HE for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 10:10:38 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39094) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDqM2-0006lP-Mq for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 10:09:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:43075) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDqM2-00088C-Cs for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 10:09:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lDqM2-00068D-7g for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 10:09:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:09:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 46627 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 46627-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B46627.161392010723362 (code B ref 46627); Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:09:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 46627) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Feb 2021 15:08:27 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54621 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lDqLS-00064h-LB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 10:08:26 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:49426) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lDqLQ-00063x-QO for 46627@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 10:08:25 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:35863) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDqLK-0007pP-IZ; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 10:08:18 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3077 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lDqLC-0007Df-H1; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 10:08:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Drew Adams on Sat, 20 Feb 2021 21:16:18 +0000) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:200498 Archived-At: > From: Drew Adams > CC: "stefan@marxist.se" , > "larsi@gnus.org" > , "rms@gnu.org" , > "46627@debbugs.gnu.org" > <46627@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 21:16:18 +0000 > > No, you missed the point. I cannot possibly miss the point I myself raised, by definition. My point is that Emacs already has a well-developed subsystem for discovery, and trying to produce an alternative based on completion is reinventing the wheel from an inferior starting point. I question the wisdom of investing our resources in developing such an alternative.