Re: flex beta 2.5.22 released

[John Millaway]

>>>> I was really referring to the form more than to the contents.
>>> Did you > try what I suggest?  I was saying that 2.5.4a has a
>>> Texinfo file that > looks written by hand, 2.5.22 has one that
>>> looks extracted from a roff > file :(
>>>
>>> It was. What about the form is displeasing?
>
>> Displeasing? It's texinfo. Displeasure is par for the course.
>
> What's the point of this comment?

The point was to lightly brush aside your opinions regarding the
"form" of the flex texinfo sources.