On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 06:41:44PM +0100, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> 
> > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2020 at 5:02 PM
> > From: tomas@tuxteam.de

[...]

> > > On that last sentence that is so. It is not always the failure of
> > > readers [...]
> >
> > Most definitely not.

To clarify: I think trying to think of this as the "failure of some
person" is an error. It's a failure of communication.

>                        But when I find myself paraphrasing (badly, at
> > that) what's already written in the manual, I've to step back and
> > ask myself whether I'm doing anything wrong.
> 
> You tried to explain it better, but think the wording in the manual
> described things better.

This was my realisation, too :)

>                            Nothing wrong about that.  Thank you for
> trying to clarify things.  Also, there is nothing wrong with giving
> up.  I was just saying how it was for me, that's all.

I'm not giving up. Just stepping back to think. Your input helps,
appreciated.

> As more people get to use emacs, what was adequate before, becomes
> inadequate.

Sometimes it's just difficult to wrap one's head around things.
"Local" variables with different kinds of locality is one of
those, but they are there for a reason. Life in Emacs without
buffer-local variables would be way more difficult.

Imagine the mess a complex mode (like CC mode) would be if you
always had to consult some buffer-bound data structure instead
of having buffer-local variables disguised as "globals".

Imagine the organizational mess minor modes would be.

Now my head hurts :)

>             Many things will change and people would want to use it
> in different ways and at different levels of sophistication.  A
> possibility could be not about writing more, but organise better.
> 
> After all we want that others are pleased with our work.

Definitely.

Cheers
 - t