[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cloning is good (was Re: How to get the help of @?)
From: |
Sergei Steshenko |
Subject: |
Re: Cloning is good (was Re: How to get the help of @?) |
Date: |
Sun, 2 Sep 2012 11:27:48 -0700 (PDT) |
--- On Sun, 9/2/12, Israel Herraiz <address@hidden> wrote:
> From: Israel Herraiz <address@hidden>
> Subject: Cloning is good (was Re: How to get the help of @?)
> To: "help-octave" <address@hidden>
> Date: Sunday, September 2, 2012, 9:57 AM
[snip]
> It would be interesting to grab evidence of this allegedly
> violated
> principle in Octave, and find out whether it is actually
> harmful or
> not. I bet it's not.
>
> Cheers,
> Israel
>
I think you have subtly changed the subject/replaced the problem.
The evidence is in the beginning of the original thread, i.e. presence of
required info on '@' in one document (PDF) and absence of it in another set of
documents ("help '@'").
The practical negative consequences are:
1) user frustration;
2) necessity to write a patch.
Had documentation been generated _automatically_ from the same snippets, there
wouldn't have been a problem.
Anyway, I meanwhile am reading the article, and there are valid points in it,
but the case with "help '@'" doesn't belong so far to what the article says
(I've completed reading 5 pages of it).
Regards,
Sergei.