> > This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult
> > to write a texinfo file, and there are many benefits to do that.
>
> However, I have always regretted, even resented, GNU's transition
> from "man" to "info" for basic reference.
I *fully* agree. It seems that you've got the wrong impression that I
don't like man pages, or that I favour texinfo over man.
man page are a perfect tool for basic documentation, and I'm always
disappointed if `man foo' doesn't work.
> But, nowadays, many GNU man pages are mere stubs, when they used to
> be full summaries, and the reader is told to read the info document.
This is sadly true -- note that I've always invested *a lot* of time
to have the man pages as concise as possible, taking the extra burden
to hold groff.texinfo in sync.
Hopefully, all users here have taken a look at groff(1), reading the
`SEE ALSO' section which brings you to, say, groff(7) or to
groff_man(7).
> For instance, though are still far from succeeding, I suspect that
> the GNU Thought Police really want everyone to use EMACS.
I don't think so.
> And it's not difficult to see hints of that in texinfo!
What exactly do you mean?
> I rarely want to get into the labyrinth of a texinfo document
> (though I'm pleased it's there I need the more discursive
> information it contains).
If a texinfo document appears as a labyrinth, it is badly written, or
rather, it has a bad structure. Sadly, groff.texinfo has similar
problems, but I don't have the time to get a better structure, and
probably, I'm too involved and too bad at writing documentation to fix
that properly. Again, and help is highly welcome -- it basically
means shifting the chapters and sections, without even editing
anything.
Werner
_______________________________________________
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
