Re: Guile in Emacs

[Jeff Clough]

"Drew Adams" <address@hidden> writes:

>> I think having cross references between the four sources 
>> described above is a great thing.  There should be more
>> of that today.
>
> According to *your* argument: For any topic, you should be able to find an
> explanation of *everything* about that topic (including all possible relations
> and ramifications) in *one* place.
>
> According to your argument, cross references are anathema - not even a 
> necessary
> evil, but something that can and should be dispensed with.

Did you read the rest of that referenced post?  I clarified that what I
want from a future Emacs, in terms of documentation, is what is provided
by today's Emacs.

> Do you get it now? Your argument is in fact an argument against *any* doc
> organization. It is an argument against cross references and the need for or 
> the
> utility of cross references.

*I* got what I wrote, but I'm pretty sure that *you* didn't.

It is perfectly fine for an "Intro Manual" included with Emacs to link
to a "Reference Manual" included with Emacs.  It is not okay for
critical documentation to be hosted anywhere but a user's hard drive,
and the number of files this documentation is contained in should be
kept to a minimum.

I am not asking for a monolithic document that would be the end all, be
all Emacs Bible.  I am stating that the four manuals +
describe-function, et al, are a great arrangment and the example I would
point to when someone asked me for an example of good documentation.

If a change was made to this system, I have a hard time believing it
would be anything other than a mistake, if only because I cannot imagine
any change improving it and if no improvement is made, effort is wasted.

Jeff