Re: [ELPA] New package: transient

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 19:23:55 +0300
> 
> The main reason the discussion even went that way is because instead of 
> acknowledging that the user's scenario is valid and the request is 
> reasonable (that code completion and describe-function's completion will 
> work easier and faster if function names are more predictable), you 
> responded with the recommendations to "just use manual".

Not the manual, the documentation commands in general.  They don't
only use the manual.

And I don't see what's wrong with that.  I saw what I thought was the
wrong tool for the job, so I suggested to use a better tool.  Why do I
have to "acknowledge" a problem in using a wrong tool, instead of
pointing out that it's wrong?  Why is it "reasonable" to used the
wrong tool and expect that it produces optimal results?  It isn't.

> Whereas the manual provides a different workflow and doesn't cover all 
> cases. For instance, it only covers the functions in the core. Maybe not 
> even all of them.

You are preaching to the choir.  I didn't say to use the manual, I
said to use the C-h commands.