Re: [STUMP] Drop the generation of stumpwm.texi

"Diogo F. S. Ramos" <[email protected]> writes:

>> Maybe we can address your concerns another way.  Besides reducing
>> complexity (which I agree, this proposal does), was there a reason that
>> you felt the need to make these changes?
>
> Reducing the complexity was not my only concern, like I stated before,
> but thank you for the care.
Can you elaborate, I know that it may feel like I'm not listening, but I
feel like I'm missing a deeper point. As I understand this (please,
please correct me):

1. A lisp docstring and a manual entry are two different things.
2. Scraping source code to generate documentation is awkward/bad/ugly.
3. Its hard to edit the manual and know what the final version is going
   to look like.
   
Therefore, it makes sense to decouple the manual from the docstrings and
maintain a pedagogical info document, as well as the doc strings for
lisp hackers who are working with the source code directly.  

Is this a fair assessment?

Cheers,

    Dave