Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * David Kastrup (2007-10-03) writes: > >> In short: there is no necessity to have the exact same wording and >> spelling of the customization options in the DOC string: the DOC >> string should have a natural flow of words even when not looking at >> the customization options, and fit the grammar and spelling (so >> quite often, the customization option will be in singular, and the >> description in plural). Of course, one will basically use the same >> catch phrase and also keep the order of descriptions and options >> strictly the same. > > But then you are running at risk that the user is not able to make > the connection between a symbol and the respective choice in the > customization interface.
Well, the changes should just be enough to fit nicely into their environment. There are probably no really good rules for everything: writing documentation remains an art. > I seem to recall a user complaining about something like that but > maybe it's just my mind playing tricks on me. It is much easier for us to get a user to complain rather than a developer. It is probably hopeless to make all users satisfied with all of AUCTeX. > Perhaps we should repeat symbol names in tags. I much prefer having a something obviously corresponding to part of the description here. The customize "button area" should form a coherent whole once you basically know the available options, and implementation details detract from it. > If such connections are made on the Customize side, they don't > pollute the doc string which is used elsewhere as well. Well, but I'd like to keep both Customize and DOC string reasonably clean on their own if possible. Again: this is more or less an art, and we'll probably not succeed on all fronts at once. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
