Re: Futile bug reports?

[Bill Richter]

       The textbook of a first-year Scheme course, such as SICP or
       HTDP, would then *not* be considered a "manual", so there is no
       policy violation in recommending SICP on g.e.h.

   I would agree that SICP is outside the scope of documentation.  An
   introduction to Scheme would definitely be documentation, though.

Thanks, Richard.  So we're hung up on the meaning of "introduction".

I called SICP an "introduction to Scheme", because there's no
prerequisite.  SICP could easily the first programming book you ever
read, and it's marketed that way: to teach a 1st programming course
(in any language) in Scheme based on SICP.

On the other hand, SICP is actually pretty advanced, and gets to a
meta-circular interpreter.

   I don't know what HTDP refers to.  

It's a similar book to SICP.  HTDP is "How to Design Programs", by
Matthias Felleisen et al, which you can read on-line at
<http://www.cs.rice.edu/CS/PLT/Teaching/Lectures/Released/Book/>
although I suppose it's not really a free book.  SICP is similarly
available on-line as a "semi-free" book at
<http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html>

So to take another example, suppose someone posts a bug report on
gnuchess, saying that one can easily beat gnuchess at level 6 by
reading the proprietary chess book XXX, which explains why gnuchess is
making a certain kind of blunder.   

If I'm reading you correctly, I think you're going to say that this
posting doesn't violate the free manuals policy, because the
proprietary chess book XXX is *not* an "introductory chess book."
That a "introductory chess book" is one that explains how the pieces
move, capturing en passant, queening on the 8th row, etc.