From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: tomas@tuxteam.de Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [ELPA] New package: transient Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 20:58:20 +0200 Message-ID: <20200430185819.GC16852@tuxteam.de> References: <83y2qezlpd.fsf@gnu.org> <83tv12zjx1.fsf@gnu.org> <20200429172739.GB4002@ACM> <20200430115108.GA4287@ACM> <20200430123855.GA1444@tuxteam.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="t0UkRYy7tHLRMCai" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="90421"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Emacs developers To: Philippe Vaucher Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 30 20:59:14 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1jUEOv-000NOf-6n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 20:59:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42400 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUEOu-0002UQ-7y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:59:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42618) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUEO8-00016f-9y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:58:24 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUEO7-00018h-CC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:58:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.tuxteam.de ([5.199.139.25]:34420) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUEO6-00018H-HZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:58:23 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuxteam.de; s=mail; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=93GiX6SsJHkVIJT57bSxxlXbdWCqEv2uo73YQx4sZmA=; b=CHEqDvO0WlNWKPXCrr1bOhM1McYF9WNgwW+X/DFotQg7sYVByDmFA47ddiMhJCau7V5j8ubcr3MAjKpgR7fBFW3HRji9NBQwFRUNW4brKMujujuF4uaJTAwKUrhHZnmYF7xNvyvfq2T1sLUdRy/lw9/RN7ycC/qAB/XMP9Tx8FoaTQ1leaR6SuDw2DKm2LGJZ+ZkSXnHXDolomCSRKghTpQ+QjoMDN3hfjm6FQiqZ+c5Cd9WywFBjK6SJ7W/r72BCfyaPrWHrBbPtdPbShUcpqTmmVN/sne6P+2N3eNhAIOba9tlAkCc5+AJ71nSQ9UZ9SgfGu8GknA7bUf4HjstbA==; Original-Received: from tomas by mail.tuxteam.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jUEO4-0004lZ-1a; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 20:58:20 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.199.139.25; envelope-from=tomas@tuxteam.de; helo=mail.tuxteam.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/04/30 14:41:23 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.1-3.10 [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 5.199.139.25 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:248264 Archived-At: --t0UkRYy7tHLRMCai Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 08:14:28PM +0200, Philippe Vaucher wrote: [tomas] > > That's it. Although my feeling is that your (Alan) reaction was too > > sharp, I also feel that you, Philippe, disregard the cultural aspects > > of your proposal [...] > I'm amazed that you reach this conclusion based on this story. My main > argument was "hey, let's add a clearer api where it makes sense, so things > are better namespaced". I'm sorry that you are amazed. It seems I'm unable to bring across my point. > People kept nitpicking about the alist example not being good enough, so I > raise other examples where it's more obvious (file*, buffer*, process*, > window*) but people keep on going back to the alist example, as if it's > impossible for you to steelman my argument. No, not "not good enough". People around here /care/ about the alist examples, since it's core Lisp terminology. It may be a bit strange, but it makes programs more readable to people around here. Changing that is not only a technical question, and if you don't account for that, strong reactions are to be expected. This is the point I think you may be missing. > Anyway Stefan agreed and proposed something about list. I said good idea > and we can make alias to the old names (that means KEEP the old names), a= nd > EVENTUALLY (in a far future) deprecate the old names, and what you guys > deduce from this? That I want to rename the existing API right now. Right now, eventually -- some care strongly about keeping parts of it. It's, of course, on them to listen to you -- but it's on you to accept their position, too. > This is strawmaning my position, I believe you wanted me to have this > position because you felt threatened by change. This old saw. "You're just hostile to change". Please don't. I know that from other discussions of this kind (believe me, I've witnessed quite a few) and it is... not constructive. > > And when people react ("hell, no!"), you're offended and drive deeper > > in your denial of the "other side's" points. > > >=20 > It looks like you never consider that I'm not denying the other side's > point, I'm saying they are not relevant to my argument. See above. > IMHO valid rebuttals to my argument would have been: >=20 > - It's too much work. > - The supposed advantages are not demonstrated. > - It will create two APIs to maintain (even tho they would only be aliases > but still a valid argument). >=20 > But certainly not: >=20 > - look, some parts of the string library in C does not follow this so your > idea is not valid > - emacs lisp is not namespaced because that is how we filter smarter peop= le > - if we start namespaceing one api then we will end up with math.+ because > it's impossible to apply your idea in a sane way So it's you who fixes what a "valid rebuttal" is? That's not the way how negotiations work. > Of course I also strawman your arguments here, but you'd get my point. > Address the center of the target, not its periphery. As defined by whom? Cheers -- tom=C3=A1s --t0UkRYy7tHLRMCai Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAl6rH8sACgkQBcgs9XrR2kb9lQCdEZlgF+wRpjssscpHIQmF42OB nAAAmwR0Kpcf4j//U0lZQDE3OYzSskT7 =difG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --t0UkRYy7tHLRMCai--