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: Character folding in the pretest Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 09:28:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <253d1ef7-4787-4c1a-b936-de54ae43b2fa@default> References: <56B1B3A1.2050605@cs.ucla.edu> <56B22F01.2050808@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1454520533 3252 80.91.229.3 (3 Feb 2016 17:28:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 17:28:53 +0000 (UTC) To: =?utf-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgUGl0LS1DbGF1ZGVs?= , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 03 18:28:41 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aR1EO-0002wv-SM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 18:28:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36649 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aR1EO-0005sy-5R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 12:28:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40903) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aR1EL-0005qh-6V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 12:28:38 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aR1EG-0004qG-3l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 12:28:37 -0500 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:24544) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aR1EF-0004pr-UB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 12:28:32 -0500 Original-Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u13HSUvT025075 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 3 Feb 2016 17:28:30 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u13HST2g026442 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Feb 2016 17:28:29 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0010.oracle.com (abhmp0010.oracle.com [141.146.116.16]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u13HST7Z004468; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 17:28:29 GMT In-Reply-To: <56B22F01.2050808@gmail.com> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.69 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:199253 Archived-At: > > Thinking first about defaults or DWIM is wrong, IMO. We > > should think first about how users can change the behavior, > > including on the fly. >=20 > I don't agree. This leads to Emacs being painful to use without large > amounts of customization. Do many Emacs devs use an empty or almost empty > .emacs? > Customizability is a strength, but the popularity of pre-packaged Emacs > configurations (prelude, Emacs starter kit, Graphene, and countless .emac= s.d > repositories) says something about good defaults. Please read what I wrote. I do not argue that defaults are unimportant, or that we should not choose good default behavior, and choose it carefully. Quite the contrary. My point is that concentrating _first_ on the default behavior, without considering various use cases, is a mistake. (One reason it is a mistake is precisely because without considering possible use cases the default choice made is likely to not be the best one.) I welcome the recent posts that point to different use cases. The mere _possibility_ of char folding (treating different chars equivalently, for some meanings of equivalence) means that there can be, and so there will be, some very different needs and preferences wrt which chars are to be handled as equivalent in which contexts. Better for us to start hearing about this at the outset, so we have a wider vision of what this new feature represents. As to the popularity of starter kits: Sure. But the popularity of _Emacs_ itself has a lot to do with its bendability - the fact that different people can use it in different ways, and extend it or customize it or change it on the fly to fit their needs. Without that, Emacs is not Emacs. And in the case at hand, I feel that char folding does not yet provide enough flexibility for users. It provides a useful set of foldings (equivalences) out of the box, and that's great, as a start. But we should make it more user-customizable. Just one opinion. It's not a case of one or the other: picking good defaults and clever DWIM or providing ways for users to control the behavior.