From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#5122: Mismatched parentheses when dealing with hugebuffercontent Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 12:57:59 -0800 Message-ID: <19EA2488C94745A492C94F2E8BEE4B98@us.oracle.com> References: <87ocmdw33d.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <838wdhjdpj.fsf@gnu.org><87d42trs02.fsf@stupidchicken.com><7CFBD14168FC4B1389C926E26A54B9E1@us.oracle.com> <87y6lfrk5f.fsf@stupidchicken.com> Reply-To: Drew Adams , 5122@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1260133678 9950 80.91.229.12 (6 Dec 2009 21:07:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:07:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 5122@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com, deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com To: "'Chong Yidong'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 06 22:07:50 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NHOKU-0006dq-JM for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:07:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46470 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NHOKT-0003Ur-UP for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:07:41 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NHOKQ-0003UU-BM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:07:38 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NHOKM-0003U2-OM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:07:38 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58989 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NHOKM-0003Tz-KS for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:07:34 -0500 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:34272) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NHOKM-0001XL-4K for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:07:34 -0500 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (rzlab.ucr.edu [127.0.0.1]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id nB6L7PJF015540; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 13:07:32 -0800 Original-Received: (from debbugs@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id nB6L04xb013850; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 13:00:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 13:00:04 -0800 X-Loop: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Resent-To: bug-submit-list@donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs 2Resent-Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:00:04 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: followup 5122 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 5122-submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B5122.126013312513746 (code B ref 5122); Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:00:04 +0000 Original-Received: (at 5122) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 6 Dec 2009 20:58:45 +0000 X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.5 Bayes not run. spammytokens:Tokens not available. hammytokens:Tokens not available. Original-Received: from acsinet12.oracle.com (acsinet12.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id nB6KwgsB013742 for <5122@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 12:58:44 -0800 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by acsinet12.oracle.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.1) with ESMTP id nB6KwQAU023540 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 6 Dec 2009 20:58:28 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.1) with ESMTP id nB6KiMHM005953; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 20:58:48 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt002.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 827090911260133070; Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:57:50 -0800 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/24.5.185.59) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:57:49 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acp2qCiH6y621bGARimYGiNgRyg3lAAAaZkA In-Reply-To: <87y6lfrk5f.fsf@stupidchicken.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Source-IP: acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090206.4B1C1AF9.008C:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Resent-Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:07:38 -0500 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:33334 Archived-At: > > Eli is right. > > > > It is plain poor judgment to leave things the way they are > > in this case. > > If you can't learn to disagree without being disagreeable, > few will have the incentive to wade through your "War And > Peace By Leo Tolstoy"-style emails (certainly not me). I'm sorry you feel that way. But there is nothing in the statement I made that is disagreeable or personal - certainly nothing like that was intended. We are making a judgment (design decision). Leaving things the way they are now would, IMHO, be a poor choice. The proposal to do that was from you, yes, but that's not my fault. It is your proposal I oppose, not you. If you insist on taking my statement personally I cannot stop you, but that is not productive and that was not my intention. I'm sorry if it came across that way to you. I think the _idea_ you promoted is a poor one - and I gave concrete reasons why. No one is immune from making bad proposals (certainly not me). I did not say anything about _you_; it is the design you defended that I opposed, and in specific terms. I am not responsible for _who_ might choose to defend the status quo design here. My argument is that we should change it. I would make exactly the same arguments against it, no matter who defended it. I'm not interested in attacking anyone; I'm interested in an exchange of ideas that improves Emacs for users. So don't take it personally - try examining the _arguments_. You will find them, as well as concrete solution suggestions, in the emails you say you don't want to read. Instead of singling out an intro statement where I said that keeping the status quo is a bad idea, try moving on to read what I said about _why_ and what to do about it. Put that statement in context. My mail said essentially "this is a bad idea because...", and all you chose to read, apparently, was "this is a bad idea". Was it because it was your idea that you didn't care to read past that? If so, that's not a very good reason. I've written several mails now in this thread. Judge their technical content - and their tone - as a whole. I stand by what I wrote - feel free to counter any part of it technically - that's how we advance. Forget about who wrote what, and just address the ideas themselves. I'm willing to address your arguments. You ignore mine, ostensibly because of my writing style. That sounds like a convenient excuse not to confront the arguments. It seems it is you who is attacking the messenger, not I. I believe you mischaracterize my contribution here, painting it as essentially unproductive ranting to be ignored. That might be convenient if you don't have counter arguments, but it is not accurate, or fair, or productive.