[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#1947: 23.0.60; Please document use of `dired' with an explicit file
bug#1947: 23.0.60; Please document use of `dired' with an explicit file list
Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:07:23 -0700
> > you are arguing against a straw man....
> > Speak not in useless generalities, please.
> Abusive as usual...
You are making an ad hominem attack. Arguments about the bug report, please.
I'm sorry if you take offense, but pointing out that your argument was an
unhelpful generality unrelated to the bug report or to any of the arguments
advanced to support it is _not_ abuse.
Perhaps you really thought that I argued that everything in every doc string
must also be in the manual. But I doubt it. You've said similar things before
(over and over, in fact), and each time I've pointed out that I haven't made
such a claim. I think you know full well by now that this is a straw man
argument you're erecting.
But whether you recognized it before or not, please recognize now that I did not
argue any such thing, and that your countering such a nonexistent claim is
irrelevant, distracting, and unhelpful. Yes, not everything in every doc string
belongs also in the manual. So what? What about _this_ particular feature?
You might not like having it pointed out that your argument does not address the
issue, but pointing that out is neither ad hominem nor irrelevant. It's trying
to get back on track, to this particular issue. I'm sorry if you feel hurt or
Please relax. Try not to be so personally close to your arguments. It's not
about you, or me; there is nothing personal here. We all make irrelevant
Let's keep the discussion on track: it's about the bug report. Give some
arguments why this particular feature should not be documented in the manual,
please. We should all be trying to help the users here; that's all.
We have 20 (!) nodes in the Emacs manual about Dired. I feel that this
relatively unknown feature is an important (useful) Dired feature, worth
pointing out somewhere among those 20 sections.
If someone wants to learn about particular Dired features (there are many), s?he
will not necessarily consult only the `dired' doc string. S?he will sometimes
consult the manual first, or instead.
You say that users "are supposed to" consult both. Fine, but a user will not
necessarily look to the doc string for info about particular Dired features -
and if s?he does s?he will be quite disappointed in general. Not to mention
that users do not always do what you might think they are "supposed to" do.
It's about helping users get information that we think could be useful to them.
I think this particular info is very useful - and not at all obvious. You are
free to disagree, and that's where I would like to see arguments. Let us know
why this info is not something we should be communicating better.