From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Patch to disable links line in *info* buffer Date: 08 Jun 2002 02:52:05 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <5xbsam1tje.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: <87bsaos1fl.fsf@orebokech.com> <200206072322.g57NMtK27277@aztec.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1023494072 28170 127.0.0.1 (7 Jun 2002 23:54:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 23:54:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: romain@orebokech.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17GTYu-0007KF-00 for ; Sat, 08 Jun 2002 01:54:32 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17GTuW-0000pN-00 for ; Sat, 08 Jun 2002 02:16:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17GTYS-00033m-00; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 19:54:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17GTVr-0002fw-00; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 19:51:23 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (unknown [10.1.82.3]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id C01DD7C016; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 23:51:21 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <200206072322.g57NMtK27277@aztec.santafe.edu> Original-Lines: 31 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:4643 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:4643 Richard Stallman writes: > This change would be a change for the worse. As I read the comments, the new behaviour with two almost identical header lines was a change to the worse. > The link line should be > visible by default, so that the possibility of using it is > self-evident. IMO, there is no self-evident purpose of the duplicate header lines. It never occurred to me that copying part of the header would be useful -- and presenting two header lines for that sole purpose doesn't warrant for the obvious unpleasant visual appearence. > As an optional feature, it is worthless. IMO, the extra header line is worthless too. > > Nobody has presented a real reason why this is bad. Nobody seems to like it. Are there really any real reasons why this is good? -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk