From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Info tutorial is out of date Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:37:27 -0700 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1153197518 20080 80.91.229.2 (18 Jul 2006 04:38:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 04:38:38 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 18 06:38:37 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2hLp-0002am-K0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 06:38:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2hLp-00050h-36 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:38:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G2hLY-0004wX-VV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:38:13 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G2hLY-0004vq-3b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:38:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2hLY-0004vc-0L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:38:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [148.87.113.118] (helo=rgminet01.oracle.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.52) id 1G2hOM-0005DT-74 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:41:06 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsmt251.oracle.com (rcsmt251.oracle.com [148.87.90.196]) by rgminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id k6I4c96r027235 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:38:09 -0600 Original-Received: from dhcp-amer-whq-csvpn-gw3-141-144-80-94.vpn.oracle.com by rcsmt250.oracle.com with ESMTP id 1578889401153197448; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:37:28 -0600 Original-To: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:57240 Archived-At: > > If there is a separate standalone-reader manual, then stuff > > that is specific > > to the standalone reader should go in that manual. > > See my other mail for the reasons why this would be not a > good idea. > > I read your other emails (unless there is yet another > somewhere), and I didn't see any reasons for this. > Please point them out. The need to have the Info manual be the first manual they read. And what is the problem in that regard? I'm not assuming they need to read any other manual first. > I saw some hand-waving about bootstrapping Sigh. Do you really think this style facilitates fruitful discussion? I'm really trying to understand you, Eli. Give me something concrete to get hold of. Just what is the problem? > Isn't the fact that you didn't even know about that other manual's > existence tells volumes of why we shouldn't leave out > stuff related to > its basics from the beginners' Info manual? > > No, I don't see the relation between my ignorance of the > standalone-reader manual and "why we shouldn't leave out > stuff..." What's the connection? What volumes does it tell? > Can you be specific? Specifically, it is not a good idea to describe basic stuff in a manual that no one will find. Which basic stuff are we talking about? Which manual? Why won't they find it? I don't follow you at all, and I'm trying to. What is the problem you're trying to describe? > Please at least read the other manual before you argue about the > duplication issue. They are two different manuals--different in > style, in preferences, and in target audience. > > You should be able to characterize the difference for those > of us on the list. But I just did--in the text you cited above. Well, I give up. Sorry, I just don't understand your point.