On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Michael Basler wrote:
> > Wolfram,
> > I was poking around in docs-mini last night intending to
> > categorize thing with the intention of putting the user
> > oriented stuff (or copies of it at least) into the base package.
> > Maybe we can make a coordinated effort on tidying that stuff.
> > I'd also like to hear input from Michael Basler, and anybody else
> > doing doco.
> I already suggested to Curt taking those parts of docs-mini which are user oriented either to the base package or to another place where the user (including users of binary distributions only) finds it, and I think he started doing so. This includes the readmes on joystick, keyboard and perhaps a couple more. At present, I don't plan to add much more of this to the Getting Started as it's just that: a Getting Started. My policy has always been to write just enough to get the beginner into the air.
> While I think any beginners should be able to get the axis of their joysticks right, intricate reprogramming of the panel gauges should be left to programmers. This should go into a programmer's guide which someone more knowledgable than me hopefully will write one day. Thus, the other stuff should stay with the source at present, I think.
Regarding the panel doco, I guess it depends on your definition of both
'intricate' and 'programmer', I agree the novice would get little value
out of the panel doc, but it is user oriented in the sense that it doesn't
require any deep programming skills to configure a panel. That's a feature
of the XML configuration. In fact, if you can understand the joystick
doc, understanding the panel doc is a very short leap.
It's a small enough file and putting aside my obvious bias for a moment, I
still think it's worth including it.
> Of course, if anyone asks for it, I can (if the author agrees .. and perhaps helps) always include more specific points into Getting Started.
> As a side note: I'd much like to get response on the Getting Started. No one (0 people, except Curt and Martin Spott, who btw. might become a Co-author) pointed out any flaw in the latest edition. Thus either it's just perfect (quite improbable) or no one's using it (more probable) ;-)
I'll reread it. I have one from April 2000, is there a later edition?