bug#21594: 25.0.50; (elisp): node `Variable Definitions' is not reachable by `i variable definition'

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > Use `g' with completion and you get to the
> > wrong node for the same input.
> 
> My point is exactly that this is a wrong analogy.  When one uses 'g',
> one needs to know the node's name in advance, not use that name as a
> means for searching for some specific subject.  The latter is done
> via 'i'.

No, it is not either-or.

`g' - especially given better completion,
e.g. substring completion - is a useful way
to jump to a node.  Especially for a node
you might know exists, but whose exact name
you might not recall.

You do _not_ "need to know the node's name
in advance".

Just as you don't need to know the exact
name of a function or variable when you use
apropos commands.  When you type some input,
`g' completion shows you node-name matches.

Let's say you're quite familiar with node
`Some Terms'.  You remember that it's about
terms and terminology.  You might even
recall that the node name involves "term".

`i term' won't get you there.  In the
Index there are many matches for "term"
(24 with substring matching, 20 with
prefix matching).  And none of those
entries take you to node `Some Terms'.

(You'll find `Some Terms' listed in the
Index, but it's not an index entry.  It's
listed only as the node name for entry
`typographic conventions'.)

But `g term' will get you there (if you
have substring completion) - instantly.

That's just one example.  And it shouldn't
be necessary to provide it.  It should be
obvious that matching node names as a way
to get to nodes can be handy.

(And the lesson of that example, for this
bug, is not to suggest that we should have
an index entry that includes "term" in this
sense of the word.  Whether that might help
is irrelevant here.)

The point is that `g' is also a way to get
around, and it does not require that you
know an exact node name.

`i' is what it is.  It remains one of the
best ways to locate something.  It's not
the only way, and it's not invariably the
best way. Other ways include Isearch and
`g'.  A hammer is a great tool, but it's
not the only one.

> > It's that `g' is also useful, and node
> > names should be helpful, not misleading.
> 
> They are, but by definition much less so than 'i'.

_This_ node name is particularly misleading,
unhelpful.

This report is not for an abstract debate
about `i' versus `g'.  Defending `i' is
irrelevant here.  I agree with you about its
general utility.

This bug is about one particular node name
that's not helpful.  It's about fixing this
name, getting one that is more useful, less
misleading.

Is there a good reason not to fix this node
name?  I haven't seen any put forward, so far.

Instead of insisting on a false all-or-nothing
choice between `i' and `g', why don't we just
fix this particular node name?  Reason?