Re: newbe: documentation string length
- From: Bulent Murtezaoglu <bm@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 02:20:32 +0200
>>>>> "PS" == Peter Seibel <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
PS> ... It seems to me that some of us occasionally
PS> lapse into using the CLHS as an intellectual weapon--"Well,
PS> duh, if you just look at 6.2.3.4.1 combined with the third
PS> sentence of the second paragraph of 5.4 it's clear that ..."
Oh, _that_ problem. Yes, I understand now. I'd say it is percieved
to be happening more often than it actually happens though.
PS> ... But to imply that someone is dumb or lazy just
PS> because they haven't been able to resolve their own confusion
PS> by referring to the Hyperspec seems a bit harsh.
I agree. I forgot what went on upthread, so I don't know if you are
referring to anything in particular, but I'd say again the dumb and lazy
part might not actually be intended at all. As you point out in the
part I deleted, the skill to use the Hyperspec to good effect is
invaluable if not essential. Most of the time people just want the
newbie to get used to helping himself, IMHO. Or, perhaps I've spent
too much time on usenet and can only detect the grossest slights.
cheers,
BM
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: newbe: documentation string length
- From: Kent M Pitman
- Re: newbe: documentation string length
- References:
- Re: newbe: documentation string length
- From: Edi Weitz
- Re: newbe: documentation string length
- From: verec
- Re: newbe: documentation string length
- From: Bulent Murtezaoglu
- Re: newbe: documentation string length
- From: Peter Seibel
- Re: newbe: documentation string length
- Prev by Date: Re: Closures in CLISP. (Newbie question)
- Next by Date: Re: Two questions together
- Previous by thread: Re: newbe: documentation string length
- Next by thread: Re: newbe: documentation string length
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|