Re: Docstrings and manuals

[Michael Albinus]

Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> writes:

> I'm not arguing in favor of leaving mistakes in the manual. But I
> think it should be strictly a derivative work. I.e. the docstrings
> must contain the complete information (if maybe presented in a terse
> fashion), and the manual could rephrase that, only to make it more
> accessible (but not more informative).

I still don't understand what problem you discuss. There are docstrings,
and there are manuals. Both have their reasons to exist.

What do you want else? Nobody urges you to read the manuals, if you
don't want.

I believe it would be good if vc-* functions are covered in a
manual. What is the problem with this?

Best regards, Michael.