| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: suggested warning about perl nested named subroutines |
| Date: | 2005-10-12 02:03:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1129082625.27676.67.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 2005-11-10 at 18:55 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> IMHO, yes, and no, respectively. If there's an example, there's fewer
> frustrated people pestering lists about it.
There is something to be said for brevity: spending a lot of prose on an
example of an obscure problem means the documentation is more difficult
to understand and less useful to most users.
Of course, that's not to say this particular problem is sufficiently
obscure that an example isn't worthwhile (I don't really know) -- but
the attitude that examples are always good is misguided IMHO.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2005-10-12 02:18:20 | Re: suggested warning about perl nested named subroutines |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-10-12 02:01:02 | Re: suggested warning about perl nested named subroutines |