[Asterisk-doc] Is this being done?

[Randy Resnick]

Hi all,

I often field simple questions on IRC and I have a lot of macros to show 
links to docs and most of these are the the older manuals on 
asteriskdocs.org. where you can directly jump to "The dialplan", for 
example.

Without being one of the RTFM! people, I do go into "see the 
links/google/wiki" mode when it's obvious that the person doesn't even 
know what a dialplan *is* or the first thing about the need for one. I 
strongly feel that these folks NEED TO READ the existing docs, 
especially, those that you are so ardently working on.

Now, to my point. Sometimes, it isn't easy to search for stuff that has 
no name. Example, suppose you know or have seen ${EXTEN:2:5} but don't 
know what the second number means. I tried to search for this, first by 
looking for the old ways like "stripLSD+deprecated". Unfortunately, the 
stuff that came up showed that much and no more.

Shouldn't the new solution always be mentioned when something is no 
longer used instead of saying, "oh that's deprecated, don't use it!" ? 
Thats' about as useful as "this has been discussed many times" in the 
mailing list :)

Part two, is there an effort to have the *definitive* text on variables, 
which would include *all* the related expressions like :n:n (you see, 
what *is* that called?) If it were a function it'd be SubStr(). So, is 
the section on variables going to have every bit of knowledge there is 
to know about the current use of variables? I don't think it does now, 
but I haven't looked for a while.

If a subject with such limited scope (variables - no pun intended) isn't 
completely covered, then people asking the simple dialpaln questions on 
IRC can say "I already read all those" with impunity and it makes for a 
lot of unanswered questions.

</incoherent_rant>