[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: Info tutorial is out of date

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: Info tutorial is out of date
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:19:07 -0700

    >     >     > If there is a separate standalone-reader manual,
    >     >     > then stuff that is specific
    >     >     > to the standalone reader should go in that manual.
    >     >
    >     >     See my other mail for the reasons why this would be not a
    >     >     good idea.
    >     >
    >     > I read your other emails (unless there is yet another
    >     > somewhere), and I didn't see any reasons for this.
    >     > Please point them out.
    >     The need to have the Info manual be the first manual they read.
    > And what is the problem in that regard? I'm not assuming they
    > need to read any other manual first.

    The top-level menu in DIR is typically very long.  If the Info manual
    is not the first item, we have no real hope that it will be the first
    one to be read.

What sentence did you just reply to? I said that I am *not* assuming Info
cannot be the first. I repeat, "what is the problem?" Put the Info manual
first. Put anything you like first. Put the Info manual anywhere you like. I
haven't uttered a word about the order of the dir file. (!?)

My proposal was about the Info *tutorial*.

    > I'm really trying to understand you, Eli. Give me something
    > concrete to get hold of. Just what is the problem?

    Your custom to use derogatory remarks and angry style.

It's not because you might feel hurt or angry that someone who might have
caused you that pain was angry at you. Humoristic (attempt) and sardonically
mocking at times, admittedly, but I don't think you can point to one shred
of angry style on my part in this exchange. I might have poked a little fun
at some of what others wrote, but I wasn't angry in any way.

The same cannot be said, however, of everyone who wrote in the thread. I may
have stood my ground, defending my arguments, and I might have resorted to a
little humor, but no anger on my part - nada.

I'm not angry about this simply because I don't have an axe to grind in the
particular debate which has set some people off: mouse vs keyboard - it
interests them much more than me.

Most of my suggestions for changing Info were passed over in silence (no
debate) or received quick, me-too explicit approval with no discussion (no

It is the sole proposal to move the lessons on `n' and `p' to the end of the
tutorial that generated so much heat and, yes, anger on the part of some
others, and so little light. My entire contribution to that discussion was
simply to repeat the proposal and supporting arguments I had set forth from
the very beginning, pointing out misrepresentations of what I had written on
the part of others.

I probably shouldn't have continued to raise your ire, but I was having too
much fun not to, and (the real reason is) I really do believe in what I
proposed. I thought we could eventually get beyond the mouse thing, to the
other suggestions.

I fear now that nothing will change in Info, because the discussion got
sidetracked, hijacked. I'm not responsible for that, but I did respond to
questions and criticisms on the anti-mouse front, instead of ignoring them.
I hoped that we would move on to the more important proposals,
but...nothing. My guess is that anyone who might have been willing to spend
some energy trying to clean up Info a bit was burned out early on in the
anti-mouse discussion. Too bad.

We went on a complete tour of supposed denigration of Lisp, supposed
intentional subliminal meaning underneath the terms "shortcut" and "quick
alternative", and a host of other neon sideshows (yes, "sideshow" can have a
connotation of naughtiness, seediness, weirdness, dirtiness, and
monstrosity - Somethin's happenin' here, but you don' know what it is, do
you, Mr. Adams?). Amusing, maybe, but not very helpful to Emacs or Info.

    >     >     Isn't the fact that you didn't even know about that
    >     >     other manual's existence tells volumes of why we
    >     >     shouldn't leave out stuff related to
    >     >     its basics from the beginners' Info manual?
    >     >
    >     > No, I don't see the relation between my ignorance of the
    >     > standalone-reader manual and "why we shouldn't leave out
    >     > stuff..." What's the connection? What volumes does it tell?
    >     > Can you be specific?
    >     Specifically, it is not a good idea to describe basic stuff in a
    >     manual that no one will find.
    > Which basic stuff are we talking about?

    How to use Info.

    > Which manual?


    > Why won't they find it?

    Because it's buried in a long menu.

So unbury it. Move it. Wherever. Whatever.

reply via email to

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