Re: Just shoot me now

[Tommy Kelly <tommy.kelly@verilab.com>]

In response to Reiner pointing out:
>> |   3. You can set the INVERT-PARTIAL flag in your split rules of the
>> |      `(FIELD VALUE ...)' types, aforementioned in this section.  If the
>> |      flag is set, word boundaries on both sides of a word are ignored
>> |      even if `nnmail-split-fancy-match-partial-words' is `nil'.
>> |      Contrarily, if the flag is set, word boundaries are not ignored
>> |      even if `nnmail-split-fancy-match-partial-words' is non-`nil'.
>> |      (New in Gnus 5.10.7)

Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:
> Point 3 is non  parseable by anyone without a degree in elisp.

Actually for me the problem is more subtle. *Once* Reiner pointed it out
I could see what was going on. Worse, I'd already seen that part of the
docs. And therefore:

> So the question is really "why is this missed by everyone who trys
> splitting"?

Exactly. So I reckon that in my case at least part of the reason is
that the split documentation is *in general* sufficiently tough-going,
and enough of it is simply obscure to anyone not already familiar with
what it's saying, that I (quite reasonably) end up not trusting it and
not reverting to it even when it would in fact help me. (Hence, for
example, me googling for info on syntax tables rather than going first
to the emacs help). 

Some of the documentation reminds me of signage in London Heathrow
Airport. Once you know where you're going, the signs make perfect
sense. 

But I think if we keep chipping away -- and with occasional assistance
from the ueber-coders (genuflects in Andreas's direction :-p ) -- we'll
come up with some useful improvements. 

Tommy