[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: shell completion documentation
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: shell completion documentation |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:24:46 -0500 |
> This is too much detail, and too dense.
That's the point. Just as much as any <specific test case> for
`comint-dynamic-complete' bug report.
Bug reports and manuals are not comparable.
That is, requesting these details from *users* reporting bugs is ok,
but for *maintainers* to document the same user visible details is
unreasonable.
Absolutely. To we debug a bug, we need the details; if they make the
bug report hard to read, we just have to roll up our sleeves and read
it anyway.
However, there is no obligation to make the manual so hard to read,
and it would be counterproductive to do so.
- shell completion documentation [Re: comint loses prompt boundary], Ilya N. Golubev, 2006/12/13
- field movement fix [Re: comint loses prompt boundary], Ilya N. Golubev, 2006/12/13
- Re: shell completion documentation [Re: comint loses prompt boundary], Richard Stallman, 2006/12/14
- Re: shell completion documentation, Ilya N. Golubev, 2006/12/15
- Re: shell completion documentation, Richard Stallman, 2006/12/16
- Re: shell completion documentation, Ilya N. Golubev, 2006/12/19
- Re: shell completion documentation, Richard Stallman, 2006/12/20
- what makes read it? [Re: shell completion documentation], Ilya N. Golubev, 2006/12/20