From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Info tutorial is out of date Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:01:16 -0700 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1153177446 6064 80.91.229.2 (17 Jul 2006 23:04:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:04:06 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 18 01:04:03 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2c85-0000Rf-6n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 01:03:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2c84-0003kB-PD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:03:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G2c7N-0003TZ-6W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:03:13 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G2c7L-0003Su-PZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:03:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2c7L-0003Sj-Mx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:03:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [148.87.113.118] (helo=rgminet01.oracle.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.52) id 1G2cA6-0001V2-KC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:06:02 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsmt251.oracle.com (rcsmt251.oracle.com [148.87.90.196]) by rgminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id k6H51fae012936 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:03:09 -0600 Original-Received: from dradams-lap.us.oracle.com by rcsmt250.oracle.com with ESMTP id 1576283681153177278; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:01:18 -0600 Original-To: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-Whitelist: TRUE X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:57219 Archived-At: > > Of course, it must tell people how to use the > > standalone Info reader > > Only the bare basics, because the more advanced features of the > stand-alone Info reader are documented in a separate manual, which > describes the stand-alone reader, and it alone. > > If there is a separate standalone-reader manual, then stuff > that is specific > to the standalone reader should go in that manual. See my other mail for the reasons why this would be not a good idea. I read your other emails (unless there is yet another somewhere), and I didn't see any reasons for this. Please point them out. I saw some hand-waving about bootstrapping, but I saw no "reasons why this would be not a good idea." Isn't the fact that you didn't even know about that other manual's existence tells volumes of why we shouldn't leave out stuff related to its basics from the beginners' Info manual? No, I don't see the relation between my ignorance of the standalone-reader manual and "why we shouldn't leave out stuff..." What's the connection? What volumes does it tell? Can you be specific? You seem to be making an argument to Authority and to hard-to-understand Complexity, but no specific obstacle has been identified yet, AFAICT. On the one hand, you call for concrete patches now ("put up or shut up", so to speak), but on the other hand, your reasons given for your point of view are nebulous. > > Emacs Info is too close to the standalone Info to justify two > > separate manuals, especially since many people may want > > to learn how > > to use both readers and we should not force them to > > read two manuals > > most of whose contents just duplicate each other. > > 100% agreement. > > But you just acknowledged that there are already two manuals. Please at least read the other manual before you argue about the duplication issue. They are two different manuals--different in style, in preferences, and in target audience. You should be able to characterize the difference for those of us on the list. If there is a standalone-reader manual, then why not put stuff specific to only the standalone reader in it (regardless of whether it is advanced or not)? What's the obstacle to doing that? Why wouldn't that be appropriate? > Would someone who thinks they know how to make the Info > manual less > ``out of date'' please submit their proposed changes, so > we could make > this discussion more practical? > > I personally cannot contribute patches (they would not be > accepted, because > I cannot get papers from my employer). Well, then someone else should, or else this discussion is a waste of time. Agreed, but design first, code second. > In any case, starting with patches would be premature. Let us agree > on what to present and how, before getting into the exact text. In my experience, people can argue forever about theoretical issues, then quickly come to an agreement once a practical suggestion is put on the table. We all have experience of that, and also of headlong thrust into the wrong implementation, without having discussed things and thought them through. Pitfalls both ways. No sense arguing in that abstract way - please be specific. And, if patches do arrive, I'm not saying they shouldn't be discussed. Anyway, I'm not convinced that we are arguing forever about abstractions. AFAICT, even some (all?) of those adamant anti-mousers have said they agree with most of my suggestions for the tutorial. If we can ever get past the keyboard/mouse thing, then I think some progress might be made. In the interest of advancing, we could even agree to table the question of presenting `n', `p', etc., and come back to it later, after making some headway improving Info along lines we might agree to. It's really not the most important suggestion I made. You guys are tough to reason with, so I give up on that argument, for now. Fuggeddabbouddit.