From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Files in wrong subdirs of emacs/lisp? Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 15:21:27 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20030524151534.851A.LEKTU@terra.es> References: <20030524143523.8511.LEKTU@terra.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1053782525 27271 80.91.224.249 (24 May 2003 13:22:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 13:22:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jmbarranquero@laley.wke.es Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sat May 24 15:22:03 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19JYyJ-00075j-00 for ; Sat, 24 May 2003 15:22:03 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19JZAY-0007md-00 for ; Sat, 24 May 2003 15:34:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19JYye-0000w8-Ko for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sat, 24 May 2003 09:22:24 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19JYyD-0000OA-Q6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 May 2003 09:21:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19JYyA-0000I0-Om for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 May 2003 09:21:55 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp.terra.es ([213.4.129.129] helo=tsmtp5.mail.isp) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19JYxk-0007Ou-Kq; Sat, 24 May 2003 09:21:28 -0400 Original-Received: from [81.40.56.203] ([81.40.56.203]) by tsmtp5.mail.isp (terra.es) with ESMTP id HFE7RQ00.SRZ; Sat, 24 May 2003 15:21:26 +0200 Original-To: ttn@glug.org In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.06.02 Original-cc: rms@gnu.org Original-cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-cc: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:14193 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:14193 On Sat, 24 May 2003 08:49:31 -0400, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote: > in the context of providing things "useful" indicates only potentiality. > in the context of using things "useful" indicates some (perhaps large) > amount of actual use. Of course. > because not all users are represented in these > discussions, we cannot assume the latter context holds. if you purport > to represent all users you lose credibility. I sincerely hope that "you" is meant as generic and you're not suggesting I did such a thing. So, assuming the generic, what you're saying is that we can *never* obsolete anything, because we can never be sure there's no "some amount of actual use". Funnily enough, in the 21.X series we've declared obsolete at least 40 functions and variables without too much worring about the actual amount of use... > something can be rendered "not useful" in the providing context if it is > not cleanly composable w/ other provided things or if there is a clear > bug in it standalone, in which case we have the option of fixing these > problems in order to return it to a "useful" state (but that's still > only a potential wrt the other context). I think you're being way too "philosophical" for something as unconsecuential as deciding if some modules should be in lisp/ or lisp/obsolete/. Even if we moved some files to obsolete/, users wouldn't see any difference (obsolete is in subdirs.el). Emacs still has variables and functions that were deemed obsolete "before 19.15" (dot*, baud-rate, buffer-flush-undo...), so it's not like we're going to empty obsolete/ any century now. This is getting ridiculous. RMS asked about alternate locations for modules. I've suggested some. Others don't like. That's all there is. /L/e/k/t/u