Le Sun, 24 Apr 2011 23:00:16 +0200, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> a écrit :
> Hi Mark, > > Thanks for the revisions. > .. Hello Mark, Andy, While you are at the manual, may I point to some suggestion I made about the structure and contents of the indexes which still is, IMHO, valid today. [wanted to actually really point the email in guile-devel archive but but it didn't let me parse before october 2009 ...] I didn't and still don't have [yet] the skill to fluently and bug freely manipulate large doc written in texinfo, otherwise I would have done it. Cheers, David ;;; ;;; here below, the 'most appropriate' email from the thread, I think ;;; From: "Neil Jerram" <neiljer...@googlemail.com> To: "David Séverin" <da...@altosw.be> Cc: guile-devel <guile-devel@gnu.org> Subject: Re: Plan for 2.0 Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:47:00 +0000 2009/1/4 Neil Jerram <neiljer...@googlemail.com>: > 2009/1/4 David Séverin <da...@altosw.be>: >> Hi Guilers, >> >> It might be a small thing [and of course not a priority at all], but I'd >> love to >> see a small evolution of the manual index structure in order to separate >> scheme >> procedures from others, scheme variables from others...: >> >> * Concept Index >> * Scheme Prodedure Index * C Procedure Index >> * Scheme Variable Index * C Variable Index >> * Scheme Type Index * C Type Index >> * R5RS Index >> >> Being a scheme 'only' programmer, I'd love not to have to scroll through >> gh_* and scm_* ... when I am looking for something in an index. > > Thanks for this idea! > > I'm not persuaded by the procedure/variable/type separation I'm sorry, that's complete nonsense, as we already have the procedure/variable/type separation. So in fact now I completely agree with what you've suggested. Regards, Neil