RE: address@hidden: RE: file-cache doc should state thatthecache is non-persistent]

[Drew Adams]

    >     Btw, should we merge the "File Name Cache" section with
    >     the following one, "File Convenience"?  They are both short,
    >     and the file cache is certainly a convenience feature of the
    >     kind described in the latter section.
    >
    > No, I don't think that's a very good idea. File Name Cache is
    > a reasonable, self-contained topic. File Convenience is, currently,
    > a grab-bag or catch-all.

    There's nothing wrong with a grab-bag section describing a feature
    that has several commands.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with that (though that node could
benefit from a bit more structure (e.g. bullets), as it is essentially a
list).

What I said was that File Name Cache is a self-contained topic. I see no
reason to toss it into the grab bag, but the grab-bag list could (should)
include a link to File Name Cache.

Just one opinion.