DETAILS mentions the existence of GET_LINE, but its interface (types of line,
its parameters, possible errors, etc) are not documented anywhere.
Of course, I could go through a typical run myself and see what the behaviour
is, but this might not cover all possible cases. (For example, there might be
other things like #1727 that a typical run might not uncover.)
That is exactly the idea. Walk it through manually and you see what you need to
type. Adding docs bearks the risk that the docs is not in sync with the code
and thus we would need to run tests to make sure this is the case. The order of
the prompts depends on so many factors that a complete documentation si not
possible.
If "a complete documentation is not possible", then it is not fit for purpose as
an API to be scripted, and you should stop advertising that functionality in public.
If you do not have time to do this documentation, the correct response is to say
"I do not have time to do this", but leave the bug open, because it is something
to be resolved in the future.
An exposed public interface that you expressly suggested me to use in a script,
is *supposed* to have documentation associated with it. That is basic standard
software engineering. You don't see standard library authors respond with "just
try out the function to see what happens", when someone points out missing
documentation.
If you order such a docuemntation I'll be glad to add it. Contact me at my
company address.