From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#46926: Remove the quotes from highlighted/linked symbols when displaying docs Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 20:44:25 +0200 Message-ID: <837dm7djli.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83czw3jy72.fsf@gnu.org> <835z1vjvm4.fsf@gnu.org> <83ft0zhuyi.fsf@gnu.org> <838s6rhthh.fsf@gnu.org> <6214567e-7e89-010d-5d0a-de0b69392625@yandex.ru> <831rcgfgpd.fsf@gnu.org> <401c0b82-a6b9-eb74-8de8-84fc956f8813@yandex.ru> <83pmzzepn7.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="38696"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: laszlomail@protonmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, stefan@marxist.se, rms@gnu.org, 46926@debbugs.gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 16 20:32:44 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lMFQq-0009z5-DL for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 20:32:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50124 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lMFQp-0001Be-Eg for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 15:32:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41244) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lMEgg-0002BN-Rn for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:45:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:57761) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lMEgg-0002yn-GT for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:45:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lMEgg-0000Gp-FR for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:45:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:45:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 46926 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 46926-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B46926.1615920268977 (code B ref 46926); Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:45:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 46926) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Mar 2021 18:44:28 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41074 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lMEg7-0000Fh-SL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:44:28 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:48070) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lMEg5-0000FT-NM for 46926@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:44:26 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:44294) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lMEfy-0002gs-JV; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:44:19 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:4395 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lMEfr-0001eb-50; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:44:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Tue, 16 Mar 2021 17:41:10 +0200) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:202484 Archived-At: > Cc: laszlomail@protonmail.com, 46926@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, > rms@gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 17:41:10 +0200 > > But speaking of 'M-o', even if we end up reverting the change because we > receive enough evidence of the change being problematic, that wouldn't > characterize the approach as bad. It would just reach one of its > possible conclusions, as any good scientific experiment should. > > What could reflect on the approach poorly, is if, for example, we follow > it, then keep the change because nobody brings up significant problems, > and then, after Emacs 28 is released, we find out about some big > breakage caused by the change. I agree: what you describe above is not a failure of the procedure. The failure is if we are unable to make a decision. And from what I've seen we might be there with the M-o issue. That's why I hope this one will be different.