[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Elisp manual omission?
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Elisp manual omission? |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:44:24 +0300 |
> From: Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden
> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:22:54 -0400
>
> > That doesn't necessarily mean they are worth mentioning in the Lisp
> > Manual.
>
> What does? If there are some objective criteria, let's hear them.
>
> It's a matter of how useful they are.
>
> I regret that that's not a clear sharp line, but there isn't a good
> clear line to use.
At this point, I'd be happy with _any_ line, even not a clear one.
Something like ``let's not document everything'' just doesn't cut it,
sorry.
- Re: Elisp manual omission?, (continued)
- Re: Elisp manual omission?, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/04/23
- Re: Elisp manual omission?, Richard Stallman, 2005/04/23
- Re: Elisp manual omission?, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/04/23
- Re: Elisp manual omission?, Richard Stallman, 2005/04/24
- Re: Elisp manual omission?, Eli Zaretskii, 2005/04/24
- Re: Elisp manual omission?, Richard Stallman, 2005/04/24
- Re: Elisp manual omission?,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Elisp manual omission?, Richard Stallman, 2005/04/26
Re: Elisp manual omission?, Nick Roberts, 2005/04/19