RE: info-find-source

[Drew Adams]

> > The "by hand" phrasing is where the confusion
> > begins because it seems to imply there is
> > a better way to "edit" them. But to me it seems
> > totally backward to edit the result of
> > compilation and I don't think I ever did that
> > because wouldn't not only update but also
> > recompilation overwrite the edits?
> >
> > In general one should edit the source! and here
> > one could simply keep a text file with any
> > extra material.
> 
> That command exists because Info files predate the makeinfo program;
> the first Info files were made by hand, because makeinfo didn't yet
> exist.

Maybe `Info-edit' existed before `makeinfo' and `Texinfo';
I don't recall.  But all three are very old.  I recall all
three back in the 80s, if I'm not mistaken.

And `Info-edit' was not deprecated until recently.  So
unless my memory is mistaken here, the lack of `makeinfo'
was not at all the reason that `Info-edit' remained
available (and bound to `e') all those years, even if it
was the case that it existed before `makeinfo'.

`Info-edit' can be useful for someone to simply modify
or add a bit of text, without needing `makeinfo' to be
available (installed).  IOW, it's use cases were never
limited to hand-creation of entire manuals.  That would
give a very false impression, IMHO, of what this command
was/is about.

For one thing, `Info-edit' is used from Info.  I'm not
sure it was ever intended to be used to write whole
manuals.  I'd guess that at least that was not the main
use case, especially all those years long.