Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs

[Jean-Christophe Helary]

> On May 3, 2020, at 1:40, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> From: Philippe Vaucher <address@hidden>

>> I think you need boths. Do you think the Ruby documentation I linked is bad?
> 
> It's worse than the ELisp manual, yes.

In terms of visual contrast/cues, it is not.

On a separate note, I've tried to work on syntax highlighting for the manual 
but there are issues with texinfo where Gavin prefers not tagging all the 
symbols and I can't help much with the solution he has in mind.

Also:

> On May 3, 2020, at 4:54, Philippe Vaucher <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> For quite a lot of people, this page 
> http://ergoemacs.org/emacs/elisp_string_functions.html is much simpler to use 
> & learn from than this page 
> https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Strings-and-Characters.html
> 
> It does not mean that the later page is bad, it is actually more complete, 
> better documented, already grouped in topics... and yet, a lot of people 
> prefer the first page... straight to the point, simple examples.

I, for one, prefer the ergoemacs approach.

• I can read the page in a reasonable amount of time,
• I can figure out what functions do and how to use them
• I can quickly imagine new ways of doing things

• and I can refer to the manual when I want deeper knowledge

In fact, when I can't make sense of the manual or find my way in it, I usually 
check the ergoemacs pages.

As mentioned above, I think the ergoemacs pages work well because of the way 
they use visual cues. We don't have many visual cues in the manual. That makes 
the manual uselessly more difficult to read.


Jean-Christophe Helary
-----------------------------------------------
http://mac4translators.blogspot.com @brandelune