> I did consider them, and used what I considered valuable, but I don'tWhy the author didn't have a better solution previously?
> feel any need to engage in an attempt to `prove' that the current
> version of the manual is `superior'.
There's no solution that all people think is better or best. You may think it's better but others may think it's worse. Previously? I'm not sure what do you mean here since I'm still an English learner. But why do we have all these versions of bash 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2? Why not directly design and imlement the 4.2 version from the beginning? And even 4.2 is not the best and Chet is still working on the next release.
If the author
had changed to the readers' perspective, then these suggested changes
should be obvious and should have already been changed before they are
caught by the readers.
The reason that I, as a reader of the manual, insists the author
justify the current state of manual is that unless the author has
changed the mind set on how to write the manual, part of the manual
will continue to be incomprehensible or at least it will take readers
much more time than necessary to read.
Again, bash is free open source software. Chances are that you may never fully satisfied with the bash manual. So why not make a fork of bash source code and start working on it. You'll have full control of it.