From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Deprecate _emacs on Windows Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:12:00 -0700 Message-ID: <0B6A6EC5FD8F46D697F914FB2F6D4304@us.oracle.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1300839142 11970 80.91.229.12 (23 Mar 2011 00:12:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:12:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Lennart Borgman' , 'Stefan Monnier' , 'Emacs developers' To: "'Juanma Barranquero'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 23 01:12:18 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2BgP-0005BK-Az for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 01:12:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44829 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q2BgO-0008Iv-P0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:12:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54591 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q2BgJ-0008GC-GC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:12:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2BgI-000336-C9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:12:11 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:50888) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2BgI-00031e-5w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:12:10 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p2N0C6IM022369 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:12:08 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p2N0C50l000723 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:12:06 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt017.oracle.com (abhmt017.oracle.com [141.146.116.26]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p2N0C5v3011809; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:12:05 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.58.141) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:12:04 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acvo0u0rm7fA23bhT8iUsZJq2K2tMgAEQD4w X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 X-Source-IP: acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090205.4D893AD6.00AE,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 148.87.113.121 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:137545 Archived-At: > perhaps you could wait until the delayed warning issue is > decided, and then we can change the warning so it still exists,=20 Why should it still exist? > but users can deactivate it from their .emacs... Sorry, > I mean from their _emacs. Why should they have to? Why issue a _warning_ for this? As long as a user's `_emacs' is found = and used (traditional behavior) there is nothing to warn about. And if a user's = `_emacs' is no longer sought and found (i.e. ignored, in the future) then the = warning obviously does no good. Since when does the mere act of deprecation call for a _warning_? A = warning is in order only if a particular deprecation means there is some danger to = warn about. Not the case for this deprecation. And certainly we should not = be warning about the deprecation itself - there is no danger in that. > > This phenomenon is a by-product of a unique civil law system gone > > litigation-crazy. =A0And the influence extends beyond=20 > > Amerika, unfortunately. >=20 > Well, Spain is nowhere near the States in this regard (and I proposed > and added the warning) so I think your analysis is... silly? > ridiculous? out of the line? Yes, I know you did, which is why I added that this has moved well = beyond Amerika. As I said, a couple of generations and globalization have = spread it, yes, even as far as Catalunya and the Canary Islands. You might like to = believe you are not so influenced by American culture, but think again. Other societies often pick up the effects (e.g., ubiquitous non-warning warnings) even when they don't necessarily pick up the cause (e.g., fear = of lawsuits). And even if an American corp doesn't necessarily fear a particular = lawsuit abroad, it often applies the same general policy as in the US. = McDonalds in Paris introduced urinals for the disabled in the 90s - it started = applying the same US-inspired policy pretty much everywhere. (Parisians sometimes = thought they were kid urinals...) That's an example of an improvement, but the effects are not always so = positive. Overcleanliness and overprotection have helped lead to antibiotic = resistance worldwide. An indiscriminate spread of watered-down warnings acts similarly. When = warnings are everywhere they tend to get ignored as background noise. Chicken = Little and the Boy Who Cried Wolf eventually got into trouble... You can't be = warning people of nonsense all the time and then expect them to stand up and = take notice when you really have something to warn about. --- That said, much of continental Europe itself has a long tradition of over-warning people. The Code Napoleon (with an explicit rule for = everything, as opposed to English law's greater reliance on precedence), coupled = with a (necessarily) unsystematic enforcement of the rules, has meant that = people are always breaking some rule or other, and typically not getting punished = for it. It's just a different system/tradition, one where "Defense d'Afficher" = is affiched everywhere. So yes, there are no doubt multiple reasons why a European might think = it appropriate to "warn" users about such a deprecation. I don't claim = that avoidance of lawsuits is the only culprit. I do feel that over-warning = has gotten worse over the last few decades, and corporate America's = increased lawsuit shyness has played a role in that. Whatever the reasons, it's too bad. One opinion.