"Diogo F. S. Ramos" <d...@riseup.net> writes:
>> Maybe we can address your concerns another way. Besides reducing
>> complexity (which I agree, this proposal does), was there a reason that
>> you felt the need to make these changes?
>
> Reducing the complexity was not my only concern, like I stated before,
> but thank you for the care.
Can you elaborate, I know that it may feel like I'm not listening, but I
feel like I'm missing a deeper point. As I understand this (please,
please correct me):
1. A lisp docstring and a manual entry are two different things.
2. Scraping source code to generate documentation is awkward/bad/ugly.
3. Its hard to edit the manual and know what the final version is going
to look like.
Therefore, it makes sense to decouple the manual from the docstrings and
maintain a pedagogical info document, as well as the doc strings for
lisp hackers who are working with the source code directly.
Is this a fair assessment?
Cheers,
Dave
_______________________________________________
Stumpwm-devel mailing list
Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
