RE: Changes in revision 114466

[Drew Adams]

>  > But users are not necessarily aware of it.
> 
> Isn't that what should be fixed, then?

1) How?  2) It's still good to provide a visual cue that a given term
is in the manual.

>  > It would be good to provide explicit (visible) links for some symbols
>  > in some doc strings.
> 
> Which ones and which ones?  

It would be a matter of judgment, case by case.  Unless you decide
that every (documented) symbol gets a link programmatically, which
might be too busy visually.  Would it be only symbols enclosed in
`...' (yes)?

Some of those are already linked to other *Help* entries, of course.
Maybe such links to the manual should be distinguished visually from
links within *Help*.

We do have links to source files, which appear the same as links
within *Help*.  But if we start adding lots of links to the manuals
for defined symbols then it might help to tell the difference from
links within *Help*.

Maybe distinguish links to the manuals using :underline with
style `wave'?  Maybe use that for any link (e.g. source file target)
that leaves *Help*?

> And why is that better (or easier to achieve) than having access
> for all symbols in all docstrings at the user's option?

Doing it automatically is no doubt easier, not harder, than doing it
using judgment case by case.

At the user's option sounds good.  Systematically might be too much
for some people.