Re: fancy-splash-screen customize group...

[Lennart Borgman]

Luc Teirlinck wrote:

> Lennart Borgman wrote:
>
>   I do not understand why they are wasteful, but I have added some more 
>   information which I believe is useful.
>
> Useful to make the node longer and hence get around Richard's
> objection?
Maybe not only that ;-)

>  `customize-apropos' is _already_ described under
> `(emacs)Specific Customization', where it belongs.  Your node just
> duplicates stuff.
>  
You are perhaps right, but I wonder if that is enough. With my first 
proposal I tried to just point to that documentation. The advantage of 
doing so is that it requires very little new text while it as the same 
time makes it more obvious that you can search for options. _Emphasis 
that you can search for options_ is the main purpose of my proposals. 
This was what was asked for I believe.

In my current proposal I am trying to understand what Richard meant. 
What resource is wasted? I focus on the human here. (Some may call this 
a "how to" perspective.) Is there anything the reader of this node would 
want to know more that would be good to tell here?

Maybe you would want to comment from this perspective? What would you 
want to remove? Is there anything else you would like to include?

> In as far as finding options is concerned, the best way to find
> options is customize-browse.  _That_ is the one we should emphasize.
>  
I do agree that customize-browse is good, but it is still not my first 
tool for finding an option. In fact I seldom use it, but at times I use 
it to get an overview.

In the first tip I tell about using "Parent groups" in the search 
results. This tells rather much about how I use to work (not only with 
custom): First I do a broad search, then I look more in detail around 
the most interesting search hits. I use this process on the Internet, in 
manuals etc. (And in fact it is the way you have to look for max-min 
values in a multidimensional function.)

> I have used it since Custom was first included with Emacs and have
> never had trouble finding options _except_ when there was trouble with
> the individual option: bad group, unclear name, unclear documentation.
>  
Those are very important issues here of course.