On Jul 13, 2007, at 1:56 PM, Ben Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 09:22:31PM +0200, Stefan Salewski wrote:
>>
>> But is it really a good idea to use much redundancy and verbosity?
>
> Redundancy is a good idea. It can be tedious when you read a document
> straight through, but it's usefu
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 09:22:31PM +0200, Stefan Salewski wrote:
>
> But is it really a good idea to use much redundancy and verbosity?
Redundancy is a good idea. It can be tedious when you read a document
straight through, but it's useful when you're using the document as a
reference.
--
Ben
> Copy and paste makes it very easy to produce such sort of verbose
> descriptions.
It's not cut and paste, it's a programmatic macro inserted by the
document extractor. The ":" one is like this:
/* %start-doc actions wq
This command has been added for the convenience of @code{vi} users and
ha
> But is it really a good idea to use much redundancy and verbosity?
>
Would you be willing to go through and fix/improve these instances of
redundancy and verbosity? Contributions to the documentation (whether
it is patches or doing it yourself via a read/write wiki account) are
always welcome a
Hello,
I spent some time reading gEDA/pcb documentation in the last weeks.
Good user-documentation is very important, and I have the feeling that
gEDA/pcb documentation has made some progress in the last months.
But is it really a good idea to use much redundancy and verbosity?
Example from Pcb
5 matches
Mail list logo
