[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-dat
From: |
Simon Josefsson |
Subject: |
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date) |
Date: |
Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:12:12 +0200 (CEST) |
On 22 Apr 2002, Miles Bader wrote:
> Per Abrahamsen <address@hidden> writes:
> > > Hm. Another approach would be if C-h v and friends groked :link.
> > > Maybe that is better. Yes, probably. Existing doc strings that
> > > contains duplicated links in docstring and :link would need to be
> > > fixed though.
> >
> > Yes, it has been on my list of "small projects I really ought to do"
> > for some time now.
>
> I think that's not the best solution for this problem, since there's
> already enough information to make such a connection automatically in
> the great majority of cases.
Are you saying that customize should adopt the "See info node" docstring
magic instead?
Another reason for that approach instead of the :link one is that it makes
the docstring contain all the documentation, including pointers to other
places. I think I have changed my mind. Making all code that displays or
parse docstrings somehow support :link as well isn't the best approach.
It is easier to use the docstring, and have well defined tags such as "See
Info node" convert into buttons for customize.
> > A more controversial solution would be to
> >
> > (defalias 'describe-variable 'customize-variable)
>
> Yes; that would be very bad.
>
> Customization buffers are filled with all sorts of crap that's
> completely unnecessary when you just want to see a quick description of
> a variable (which is about 99% of the time for me), which would distract
> greatly from the actual documentation (not to mention ballooning the
> size of help buffers to something absurd).
The customize screen could be cleaned up to solve this. However, I find
customize-variable slow compared to describe-variable so I agree this
would be a bad solution.
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), (continued)
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Eli Zaretskii, 2002/04/21
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Per Abrahamsen, 2002/04/21
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Simon Josefsson, 2002/04/21
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Per Abrahamsen, 2002/04/22
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Miles Bader, 2002/04/22
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Per Abrahamsen, 2002/04/22
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Miles Bader, 2002/04/22
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date),
Simon Josefsson <=
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Per Abrahamsen, 2002/04/22
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Simon Josefsson, 2002/04/22
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Richard Stallman, 2002/04/23
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Richard Stallman, 2002/04/22
- Tutorials and Demos (Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Samuel Mikes, 2002/04/23
- Re: Tutorials and Demos, Robin S. Socha, 2002/04/24
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Andy Piper, 2002/04/19