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: [ELPA] New package: transient Date: Sun, 03 May 2020 19:47:02 +0300 Message-ID: <83h7wxotix.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87368npxw4.fsf@bernoul.li> <87v9ljo5d0.fsf@bernoul.li> <87ftcnxu5m.fsf@bernoul.li> <83y2qezlpd.fsf@gnu.org> <83tv12zjx1.fsf@gnu.org> <20200429101755.GF24737@tuxteam.de> <838sicw4do.fsf@gnu.org> <83zhaqu89z.fsf@gnu.org> <83sggiu2p9.fsf@gnu.org> <83r1w2s9wi.fsf@gnu.org> <83v9leqmss.fsf@gnu.org> <83zhapoz63.fsf@gnu.org> <0a13f7e1-61c7-1e78-22bc-a27c15c269e7@yandex.ru> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="46521"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: tomas@tuxteam.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, rms@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun May 03 18:47:48 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 1jVHmN-000Bzl-Kd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 03 May 2020 18:47:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47562 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVHmM-0001bt-N3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 03 May 2020 12:47:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41726) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVHlt-0001CD-Jt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 May 2020 12:47:17 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:55960) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVHls-0007iR-GV; Sun, 03 May 2020 12:47:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1455 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jVHlk-0001Yh-L9; Sun, 03 May 2020 12:47:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <0a13f7e1-61c7-1e78-22bc-a27c15c269e7@yandex.ru> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sun, 3 May 2020 19:23:55 +0300) 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:248717 Archived-At: > Cc: tomas@tuxteam.de, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 19:23:55 +0300 > > The main reason the discussion even went that way is because instead of > acknowledging that the user's scenario is valid and the request is > reasonable (that code completion and describe-function's completion will > work easier and faster if function names are more predictable), you > responded with the recommendations to "just use manual". Not the manual, the documentation commands in general. They don't only use the manual. And I don't see what's wrong with that. I saw what I thought was the wrong tool for the job, so I suggested to use a better tool. Why do I have to "acknowledge" a problem in using a wrong tool, instead of pointing out that it's wrong? Why is it "reasonable" to used the wrong tool and expect that it produces optimal results? It isn't. > Whereas the manual provides a different workflow and doesn't cover all > cases. For instance, it only covers the functions in the core. Maybe not > even all of them. You are preaching to the choir. I didn't say to use the manual, I said to use the C-h commands.