On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 01:18:12PM -0000, Peter Onion wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: main-bounces@lists.alug.org.uk [mailto:main- bounces@lists.alug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Chris Green Sent: 28 November 2005 13:04 To: 'ALUG' Subject: [ALUG] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: main Digest, Vol 5, Issue 47#
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:46:32PM -0000, Peter Onion wrote:
Imagine a restaurant where the menu is a several hundred page book....
Sounds like heaven to me, but I doubt that's what you intended ? You need to think more about your analogies ;-)
You got the message! :-)
Are you sure ? Your post read that you would prefere the version with NO menu rather than the counter example you put up.....
I'm now confused about what point you are trying to make.
I was simply saying that a menu with twenty or thirty entries is fine, and useful, but that one with hundreds of entries isn't useful. To cover all the possible commands available at the command line a menu system would have hundreds (thousands?) of entries.
I'm now confused about what point you are trying to make.
I was simply saying that a menu with twenty or thirty entries is fine, and useful, but that one with hundreds of entries isn't useful.
Do you know what a "sub-menu" is ? Do you know how to organize information hierarchically ?
To cover all the possible commands available at the command line a menu system would have hundreds (thousands?) of entries.
But you don't need a menu entry for every possible command line you may ever use. I can edit lots of different files using just the one emacs menu button I have placed on the top menu bar and I can view lots of different web sites using just one browser menu entry. There are other ways than command line options and parameters to control the way an applications operates.
Peter
-
Chris Green -
Peter Onion