Follow-up Comment #8, bug #67837 (group groff):
[comment #6 comment #6:]
> Your "what time" questions are valid and demand answers for a full accounting
> in the manual. But even mentioning the logical OR without those crucial
> details would be an improvement over the status quo, which doesn't mention
> the ORing _at all_. A single vague sentence could have forestalled a swath
> of that #67711 thread.
>
> If you want to wait for a full understanding behind the scenes before
> breathing a word of this to the audience, that's a defensible position. But,
> as I've apparently become fond of saying lately, perfect is the enemy of
> good. I think it's better to give a vague gesture toward what's happening,
> with details to be filled in later, than to keep mum about it. The manual
> was vague about a lot of details for decades before your reign of
> terror^Wreformation began, but people still found it useful.
"If you want to wait for a full understanding behind the scenes before
breathing a word of this to the audience, that's a defensible position."
Yes, pretty much. I'm sure my perfectionism has a role to play here, but so
does my laziness or, more charitably to myself, my desire to optimize my
effectiveness when picking up a task to work on it.
It's just plain _easier_ (and therefore faster) for me to write documentation
when I feel I've mastered the underlying subject. I can be wrong about my
mastery, but I write more swiftly, with greater confidence, and, I'm willing
to bet, with greater clarity to the reader.
It's hard to document a system when one can see it only through a glass,
darkly.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?67837>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
