From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8900: 24.0.50; please index mentioned coding systems in Emacs manual Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 11:17:23 -0700 Message-ID: <9BB5F2A7090B4F2585512C563D1717B3@us.oracle.com> References: <246694EE605F4CE391A4FB9416853D98@us.oracle.com> <83pqltriq9.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1309547985 20079 80.91.229.12 (1 Jul 2011 19:19:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 19:19:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 8900@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 01 21:19:38 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QcjFZ-0003V8-GT for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 21:19:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56041 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QcjFY-0001kN-3W for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:19:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46456) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QciI0-0002B0-EA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:18:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QciHz-0007UY-2N for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:18:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:56674) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QciHy-0007US-RC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:18:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QciHy-0004qH-38; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:18:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:18:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8900 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: fixed Original-Received: via spool by 8900-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8900.130954426418588 (code B ref 8900); Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:18:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8900) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Jul 2011 18:17:44 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QciHf-0004pk-HL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:17:43 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QciHd-0004pX-QR for 8900@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:17:42 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p61IHXMA014844 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 1 Jul 2011 18:17:35 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p61IHWDE018338 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Jul 2011 18:17:33 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt117.oracle.com (abhmt117.oracle.com [141.146.116.69]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p61IHQAH013808; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 13:17:27 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.59.183) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:17:26 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <83pqltriq9.fsf@gnu.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 Thread-Index: Acw4F7Pemtz/tTSXRbKtI/gFQC3lwwAACjMQ X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090203.4E0E0F3F.0202:SCFMA922111,ss=1,re=-4.000,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:18:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:47716 Archived-At: > > I disagree. These are real, implementation, user-visible, > > runtime names. This is just like indexing command names > > or variable names or package names. The exact name should > > appear in the index. > > Not true, at least not until we have a detailed documentation of each > encoding there. The absolute majority of coding-systems is not > documented in the manual, so there's no real place to put the index > entries. I'm not sure there's something intelligent to tell about > these encodings in the manual, either. Doesn't matter that we don't have detailed doc about these. Certainly doesn't matter that we don't have detailed doc about *each* coding system. The fact is that the manual provides some information about these particular coding systems. They should be indexed so users can easily find that information. An index does not refer only to "detailed documentation" about terms. It refers to terms that we think a user is likely to look for in the book. It is often the case that a term is indexed that is only mentioned in the book. What is important is whether a user might want to look it up, not how much the book goes into detail about it. The book might even state in some context "this book does not cover XYZ", and `XYZ' might still be appropriate as an index entry - precisely to get you to that information, however negative and incomplete. > > Consider, for instance, the use case that brought this to > > my attention: > > You cannot assume that every symbol appears in the manual. What makes you think I make such an assumption? Far from it. You have knee-jerk repeated that several times over the past - it seems to be your mantra whenever indexing comes up. Just a straw man - no one here is assuming any such thing. Certainly it is _not_ the case that every symbol _should_ appear in the manual. Far from it. The vast majority of symbols should _not_. In any case, this is not about whether some given term should appear in the manual. This is about whether some particular terms that _do_ appear in the manual should be indexed. > So this feature can never work reliably, only ad-hoc. Wrong. "This feature" is to provide a link in *Help* (in this case, for `describe-coding-system XYZ') to search the manuals for a corresponding index entry. That works 100% reliably. "This feature" also includes an option for those who prefer that a link to search the manuals not be added unless there are in fact index entries for the subject term in the manuals to be searched. And that option also lets users choose which manuals are to be searched. But regardless of the option value, clicking the `manuals' link will always correctly search the specified manuals and produce a virtual index if the subject term is found. 100% reliable. > You should be prepared for the situation where the manual > doesn't have this in its index, and handle that gracefully. See above. And see the emacs-devel thread where the feature was described. Or see the source code that implements it - either the submitted patch or the cited library, help-fns+.el. And independently of this feature, a user can _already_ create a virtual index (which is what this feature creates automatically when you click the `manuals' link). Doing that should find a particular coding system that is discussed in the manual. If the manual had nothing to say about these coding systems then they would not be there and would not be indexed.