At 06:59 PM 3/5/02 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 01:03:02 -0500 >> From: "Peter J. Farley III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Aha! Now I see why we disagree so much on this subject. We have >> exactly opposite methods of searching for information. My method of >> searching is to start at the most general first, if necessary weeding >> through large swaths of useless chaff to decide how to get more >> specific in my search criteria. > >This is very inefficient, in my experience, at least when using the >index search.
But, as I just confirmed by trying it, index search does not work from the "/info/dir" screen, only when you are already inside one of the package info files. I deduce from this that the index command only searches for an index in the current document. I further deduce that the "--apropos" option is the mechanism that info uses to search all known documents for indices, and then searches each of those that it finds. I now understand your estimate of the large amount of work it would take to provide an index for "/info/dir". Hats off to the person who takes that task on. <Snipped> >> When I am searching a book (a reference book), I begin with the Table >> of Contents, looking for chapter headings that might relate to the >> information I need, then scanning down sub-chapter headings for more >> detailed information, and then finally reading actual pages in the >> subchapters to find the actual information. I don't generally start >> at the index in the back, since I usually don't know any of the >> detailed specifics of the subject at hand. > >I never look at the TOC except if the index search fails (or there's >no index). > >The way to search the index is to find a name for the issue you are >looking for, then look up that issue in the index. > >The indexing in GNU manuals is designed for such searches. I understand your technique, but some of us just aren't wired to work that way. Yes we can learn it, but it's not our natural method. <Snipped> >> That is the kind of structure and content I would like to see in >> "/info/dir", that would allow searchers to start at the most general >> and work their way down to the most specific. > >IMHO, it won't work because the collection of GNU manuals lacks >hierarchy, which is necessary for the kind of top-down search you are >used to. It is both possible and (IMHO) necessary to impose such structure, even if it doesn't currently exist. There are definite and specific terms that can be used to categorize the various GNU utilities. All I am asking is that texinfo develop and recommend those categories and functional categories as standards, and then work towards getting the community to agree that such categorization is useful and therefore worth the effort. For any given GNU package, it is only a matter of a few extra lines of documentation, and most of those lines are already menu entries anyway, and only need to be copied. For packages with many utilities like textutils or shellutils, the DJGPP "/info/dir" already provides the example of the kind of functional categorization I am promoting here. Look, I don't think that I'm asking for a lot here. Some definite recommendations in the texinfo documentation, some work (perhaps by someone like me who cares about it, perhaps by some package maintainers who can be convinced of the usefulness of the effort) on individual package texinfo files to add additional categories and entries, and *both* index-searchers like you and TOC searchers like me have something they can work with. Neither solution is ideal, but isn't it all about approaching the ideal in increments? --------------------------------------------------------- Peter J. Farley III ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ Bug-texinfo mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-texinfo
