Which things?
well, I don´t think it´s a good way not to be informed on the actual state of
"compiler-work" although it´s a commercial project (but it´ll affect us too),
then I *thought* you´re (core-dev) not informing the rest of the world which
way the development takes (but then we found out that it´s all kept in you brains),
and I think there is some process which is hidden, the best example
AndiGutmans: "here´s the long awaited patch...", well "long-awaited"? perhaps I did
miss sth. but that message came such suddenly,
I´ve subsribed to cvs-commit-daily then...
No it is *not* users guide. It is reference manual. If you want user's
guide, fine, but it's not the same as reference manual. And they should be
different, because they serve different purpose. In this case, we need two
documents, and making existing reference manual into user's guide only to
struggle afterwards to get reference manual back would be a clean waste of
time and effort.
like you said we all have 24 hours and 99,9% of these hours are
in use, there *is* no person(s) currently I know of which could such
an important task and I think we should not wait 2 years on it.
perhaps we could add a few things to the manual and as far as it is
enough to justify 2 references, divide it then
I´d call that more realistic to have success
hey, just the manual is partially not up to date and there´s a lot to do,
what if there were two or more references to take care about,
your way does make sense *in the long run* or do you recognize resources anywhere
to take this task?
--
o----------0-¬---------O-·---¬----o---®-----o o O ° .
| http://www.kiffen.de | pRoteçt y0ur bRaín |0 O ° ¤ °
·
0°·³°²'²³-¹'³´³°^°³~³²³°'³²²¨³²^³¹³²°²³`³º³°Þ °
o © ° . ·
| psychedelic experience | gott@kiffen.de | O ° o °
o-¬--o--0-----©-·--O-----o-----0-¤----------o 0 ° · ° . ¤ ·