Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I don't believe that the *ability* to have comments is the problem.
> It wouldn't hurt anything to ship a file with a general comment block
> at the top, with whatever content someone wants to put there. What
> makes it impossible to machine-edit this file is that there is a
> comment for every single setting, and that the "right place" to insert
> a value for any particular setting is (at least in the default
> configuration) marked by a comment which can be interpreted by humans
> and not by a computer.
Right, but your mistake is in supposing that that statement has
something to do with the instructions. What it has to do with is
a style of usage that the instructions happen to exemplify --- but
getting rid of the instructions wouldn't make people change their
usage habits.
I concur with Greg Smith's nearby comments that the way to go at this
is a stepwise process. It is only *after* there is a workable tool
that is a clear improvement on manual editing that you will have any
chance of getting people to move away from manual editing, or even
getting them to entertain any change proposals that make manual editing
less pleasant.
regards, tom lane
