Re: Auto Fill Comments

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2020 at 10:26 PM
> From: "Arthur Miller" <arthur.miller@live.com>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Auto Fill Comments
>
> Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:
>
> >> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2020 at 8:03 PM
> >> From: "Arthur Miller" <arthur.miller@live.com>
> >> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> >> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> >> Subject: Re: Auto Fill Comments
> >>
> >> Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > My experience has been that as I got to do more things in emacs lisp,
> >> > the understanding needed quickly exceeded my rate of learning.
> >> > One can get to sophisticated constructs, even when trying to do
> >> > relatively simple things.  You never know where your original
> >> > plan could get you. Many times the importance of a work is not
> >> > measured by its consequences (i.e. by the final command).
> >> That is probably because you try to do more difficult things then
> >> before.
> >>
> >> I have been using Emacs for like almost 20 years, and was enough with
> >> setq-ing few variables, and wrapping ocassional few lines in a defun to
> >> put it on a hook.
> >
> > I used to argue that code must be adequately commented.  Later on I realised
> > that adequacy is determined by the skill of the reader.  Currently I 
> > advocate
> > that code comments are to give an overview of the code to help you reduce
> > the downtime required to work on the code after a time of inactivity.
> >
> > Documentation, however, is to be structured according to different levels
> > of sophistication.  But I understand it could be a lot of work to complete.
> > Was not my intention to deride anyone. but to describe how it is.  
> > Documentation
> > is always better than no documentation.  And everyone does as one can.
>
> True. However, Emacs manuals are written by volunteers with limited
> resources in their spair time (I hack Emacs as a hobby when I drink
> coffee), so what is practical has also to be take into account. They
> have to prioritize what level they put themselves on, especially Elisp
> manual.

Agreed.  But telling users that one does not work for them is excessive, to say
the least.  I have hired people to work on free software, not one or two.
And things were approached more professionally.  Those in such position to 
assign
work will think twice before assigning someone to the task if they come across
the wrong way.  I certainly do.

> I think it currently has good balance between targetting basics and
> advanced usage.
>
>