[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [ELPA] New package: transient

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: [ELPA] New package: transient
Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 20:04:38 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0

On 03.05.2020 19:47, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Not the manual, the documentation commands in general.  They don't
only use the manual.

The apropos command has pretty much the same problem with filtering and ordering. Only more difficult, since it offers more matches.

Having function names more consistency named would help with it too.

Personal note: I don't like it's output. It's noisy and hard to scan visually. But that has little bearing on the argument.

And I don't see what's wrong with that.  I saw what I thought was the
wrong tool for the job, so I suggested to use a better tool.  Why do I
have to "acknowledge" a problem in using a wrong tool, instead of
pointing out that it's wrong?  Why is it "reasonable" to used the
wrong tool and expect that it produces optimal results?  It isn't.

Calling a tool that many people have been employing for years "inadequate" is mildly insulting and dismissive of others' experience.

Even if I start using apropos and the manual more, I will continue using code completion and describe-xxx commands nevertheless, and better naming would still help there.

reply via email to

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