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: Mon, 04 May 2020 17:36:30 +0300 Message-ID: <83a72nojgx.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> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="12184"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, dgutov@yandex.ru, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Jean-Christophe Helary Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon May 04 16:58:09 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 1jVcXm-0002y1-CU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 16:58:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58054 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVcXl-0006yg-DH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 10:58:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48678) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVcD5-0001Du-BQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 10:36:43 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:59025) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVcD4-0001pB-J6; Mon, 04 May 2020 10:36:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1300 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jVcCv-0006OF-Vc; Mon, 04 May 2020 10:36:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Jean-Christophe Helary on Mon, 4 May 2020 16:47:11 +0900) 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:248832 Archived-At: > From: Jean-Christophe Helary > Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 16:47:11 +0900 > Cc: Philippe Vaucher , > dgutov@yandex.ru, > rms@gnu.org, > joaotavora@gmail.com, > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > >> For quite a lot of people, this page > >> http://ergoemacs.org/emacs/elisp_string_functions.html is much simpler > >> to use & learn from than this page > >> https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Strings-and-Characters.html > >> > >> It does not mean that the later page is bad, it is actually more complete, > >> better documented, already grouped > >> in topics... and yet, a lot of people prefer the first page... straight to > >> the point, simple examples. > >> > >> Please tell me if you are able to understand this, if you cannot I'll try to > >> explain further. > > > > 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. > > Nobody claimed that it was *all* we want to see or have. Quite the contrary. Maybe we are in two different discussions, then. Because the above clearly says: "this page (ergoemacs) is much simpler to use & learn from than this page (ELisp)". IOW, it sees the ergoemacs page as a better _replacement_ for the ELisp manual. If this doesn't mean that the ELisp manual is not needed, then maybe I have basic misunderstanding of written English. Or maybe your opinion is different from that of Philippe, but then I was responding to Philippe, and in any case "nobody claimed" is then inaccurate, isn't it? > There is a need for such a summary *that also links at the current > documentation*, as I also replied. > > That "summary" (regardless of how it is implemented) does not exist today and > that is partly what this whole thread is about. AFAIU, the request for such a summary is quite new in this discussion, and is definitely not "what this whole thread is about.". Most of this thread is about something entirely different: changing the names of APIs so that completion could be more useful for discovery.