[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with

From: Paul Smith
Subject: Re: [bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:50:05 -0500

On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 19:04 -0800, David Boyce wrote:

> I think you and the others in the "nay" camp may be being a bit
> unfair. As far as I can see, nobody has proposed (in this thread) that
> the entire manual be reworked to note the version in which each
> feature appeared. You're absolutely right that that would stink but
> it's a straw man. The proposal, as I understand it, is to add a note
> about this particular incompatibility because of the mysterious,
> silent way it fails.

I'm not excited about it but if someone produces a patch for this aspect
alone, I'll look at it.  If it's not too ugly I'll add it in.

My opinion remains that the only way to be sure you're not being misled
by the documentation is to use what is provided by your GNU/Linux
distribution.  That documentation will always be the correct version for
the version of GNU make that you're using in your distribution.

> There may even be a couple of other cases that could get similar
> treatment. It doesn't have to become a slippery slope.

Hm.  Maybe it's just me but this seems somewhat ironic :-p :-).

>         If the GNU website were to require you to select the version
>         of make
>         you wanted to see the documentation for, I think that would be
>         a
>         reasonable 'solution'.  Perhaps a layout like
>         http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/ could be done without too much
>         complexity.

>  Another nice example is the Python docs
> (http://docs.python.org/2/index.html). Notice the dropdown at the top
> left where you get to pick the version you care about.

I would love this and it would solve all the problems, however it's not
something I can do.  The FSF/GNU website is maintained by a completely
separate group and I have virtually no say in how it's presented, not
even the GNU make area.  I control only the "front page" for GNU make.

I can ask the maintainers to see what they think.  I have a vague
recollection that something like this has been discussed in the past

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]