[Top][All Lists]

[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 (X11/20101213)

On 03/23/2011 11:38 AM David Kastrup wrote:
> ken <address@hidden> 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.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]