Re: Re: Package Help in Mathematica 6

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg76033] Re: [mg75971] Re: Package Help in Mathematica 6*From*: DrMajorBob <drmajorbob at bigfoot.com>*Date*: Tue, 15 May 2007 04:50:31 -0400 (EDT)*References*: <29040730.1179134897651.JavaMail.root@m35>*Reply-to*: drmajorbob at bigfoot.com

I was a vociferous critic of the OLD system, because it had no search capability. For example, "vector" wasn't a keyword for the vector calculus package documentation (as I recall), so you couldn't find it unless you already knew where to find it. And there were millions of other examples. Someone came up with a way to search the online documentation, and that seems to have evolved into the new Help system. There are frustrations with the new scheme, but I suspect they'll be worked out. Bobby On Mon, 14 May 2007 02:40:55 -0500, Dana DeLouis <dana.del at gmail.com> wrote: >> C:\Program Files\Wolfram Research\ >> Mathematica\6.0\Documentation\English\Packages > > I find the new "help" system worthless. It is sad, but in Windows > Explorer, > I have been searching around here for stuff to read. > There is a folder called "Compatibility" that talks about some of the > packages, and their changes. Even here, the help files are not very > helpful. > I have no idea what Wolfram was thinking when they came up with this > terrible Help system. > > For example, I am interested in Combinatorica. A new user would have no > idea what that was. Earlier, I was trying to figure out which of two > Combinatorica.m packages is which. > There are two: > LegacyPackages\DiscreteMath > & > Packages\Combinatorica > I noticed that the code in the second one above, the logic bug for > "CostOfPath" was fixed. It will now work correctly with Directed or > Undirected graphs. But, this is a hard way to do it. > > This help system is not designed well for such a large system. It needs > to > be broken down into sections that are more readable. My hand is sore > from > all the clicking. For each item, you have to click "more about., scope, > properties, issues.etc. > Absolutely terrible!! -- DrMajorBob at bigfoot.com