Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: nntp.gmd.de!Dortmund.Germany.EU.net!Germany.EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca!svanegmo
From: svanegmo@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond)
Subject: Re: Everything about Inform t
Message-ID: <DALFHL.83n@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
Sender: news@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (news spool owner)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <EjtPb9e00WB5IE8U8Z@andrew.cmu.edu> <60.5812.4154.0N1E80A0@canrem.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 21:24:56 GMT
Lines: 26

In many respects, the Inform manual is an excellent tutorial.  It 
partially succeeds as a reference, but many parts of the specification 
aren't very rigorous.   In some respects, a reference manual should 
constitute a complete, unambiguous specification of the subject.

In Inform's acase, any ambiguities can be resolved by reading the 
libraries, but for some people (i.e. me) that is a frightening prospect. 

I would be more than happy to contribute to the improvement of the 
manual.  I like the way Graham Nelson described it in the introduction: 
"[some parts] are both leaden _and_ patronizing".   The style of it is 
excellent and just feels right for the subject.

Some manuals simply attempt to describe the syntax of the language, 
whereas others try to describe what can be done, and hope that the syntax 
shows through.  It's like reading a book on C++ vs. a book on 
object-oriented programming.  I think the Designers' Manual does both 
simultaneously and it doesn't always work.

I reiterate: I'm more than willing to help out in the manual's
development.  If there were an IF game for learning programming, I'd have
5 out of 100 points, 100 being the skill for a finished game, giving me
the ranking of doe-eyed, frightened rookie. 

/Steve

