From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs Date: Sun, 03 May 2020 19:12:54 +0300 Message-ID: <83pnblov3t.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831ro2tqqx.fsf@gnu.org> <4a1fd3f4-df92-c756-9874-4d07b54148ac@yandex.ru> <83v9lesapw.fsf@gnu.org> <83pnbms9m8.fsf@gnu.org> <83a72qs4z2.fsf@gnu.org> <83wo5uqoh5.fsf@gnu.org> <838si9qf7s.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="32926"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: dgutov@yandex.ru, rms@gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Philippe Vaucher Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun May 03 18:13:49 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1jVHFU-0008RF-1W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 03 May 2020 18:13:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39158 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVHFT-0000Dz-12 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 03 May 2020 12:13:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37294) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVHEq-0006EM-Se for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 May 2020 12:13:08 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:55400) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVHEq-0000Us-Co; Sun, 03 May 2020 12:13:08 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3223 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jVHEj-0004vt-52; Sun, 03 May 2020 12:13:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Philippe Vaucher on Sun, 3 May 2020 16:18:43 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:248709 Archived-At: > From: Philippe Vaucher > Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 16:18:43 +0200 > Cc: João Távora , > Emacs developers , Stefan Monnier , > Richard Stallman , Dmitry Gutov > > I understand this very well, I'm just astonished to hear that this is > all the documentation you and some others want to see or have. It's > completely against all I have ever learned and practiced in the way of > teaching people various skills and topics (and I did that more than > once or twice). > > No this is not what we are saying. Tutorials are not the only documentation I and others want to see. > > We like to switch between tutorials and full-blown documentation at different times depending on various > factors. In Emacs there's only the full-blown documentation. Then I really don't get it. Tutorials are generally read only once, when you first familiarize yourself with a topic and generally want just the "taste" of it. Once you are past that step, there's no reason to go back to the tutorial, and the reference manual is the main tool for learning and doing. And yet you insist on seeing "tutorial-style" lists each time you need some API, but don't really know which. Why? this doesn't sound like what people use tutorials for. > Emacs has a wealth of documentation at your fingertips, arranged, > indexed, and enriched with a large collection of commands designed to > make our self-documenting editor easy to study. To give up all of > this and insist on having instead a flat list of APIs that match some > textual pattern is something that comes as a shock to me. > > We are not giving up on it. Some might but at least not me. Well, you could have fooled me! You started by saying that C-h commands are virtually useless (maybe not in these words, but that's the cruz of what you said back then).