[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Irrelevant digression [was: Re: bug in elisp... or in elisper???]
From: |
ken |
Subject: |
Irrelevant digression [was: Re: bug in elisp... or in elisper???] |
Date: |
Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:40:48 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101213) |
On 03/23/2011 11:38 AM David Kastrup wrote:
> ken <gebser@mousecar.com> writes:
>
>> An inability to count would be the most derogatory interpretation.
>> But the function I wrote (here elided) actually did the counting for
>> me, so that would not be a cogent interpretation. A mere mortal, I
>> wasn't born knowing that REs could be nested (documentation I read in
>> fact stated they couldn't),
>
> Emacs comes with its own hyperlinked, up to date, maintained, indexed
> fast documentation accessible via Help menu and keybindings.
Thanks, David, but I knew that already. Though I've read quite a bit of
it, admittedly, I didn't read the entirety of the emacs and elisp
documentation. I'm sure you're not suggesting that as requisite
preparation for writing a few elisp functions as that would preclude
most all of us from ever attempting it.
>
> There is no reason to promote random garbage found somewhere on the
> internet to "documentation". In particular not concerning software that
> has a history of 30 years, where consequently most documentation in
> existence that might at one point even have been accurate is no longer
> so due to being prehistoric.
And I certainly didn't "promote" it. The web is what it is. Haven't
you ever googled for something?
>
> Still I have my doubts that the documentation you are alluding to even
> was ever part of Emacs.
Someone had a webpage with information on it, much, perhaps most, of it
good information. I never said that webpage was "part of Emacs". It's
the web. Somebody made a mistake. Humans do that occasionally.
>
>> of course then also not that in such cases both inner and outer REs
>> are counted separately by match-string. So once again, the more
>> charitable interpretation is the more perspicacious... and vice versa.
>
> Care to provide a pointer to the "documentation" you are referring to?
> While I have my doubts it will lead to a much more charitable
> interpretation, I certainly am willing to let myself be surprised.
I read dozens of pages and see no gain or merit in reading back through
all of them to verify what I read... unless I had some neurotic desire
to win points in an irrelevant and fruitless discussion-- which I don't.
Nor would I want to obligate anyone to be charitable. That doesn't
work. Either they got it or they don't.
Re: bug in elisp... or in elisper???, Tim X, 2011/03/23