Re: Emacs manual mentioning thumbs mode but not tumme

["Mathias Dahl" <mathias.dahl@gmail.com>]

> The point for retaining thumbs is that one can't please everybody with
> one approach.
> ...
> From a user's perspective I think offering choice
> outstrips every other disadvantage concerning maintainability,
> consistency, etc.

That might be true in many situations. However, Thumbs and Tumme are
very similar, feature-wise. There are some differences in how things
are implemented which I do not think is very important.

My opinion is that if there are functions in Thumbs that isn't in
Tumme, we should add them in Tumme. Or, we could do the opposite, but
I think that will take more work.

> There might be users who dislike tumme's name and
> "unnecessary overhead" and ...

I know those were just examples of things people might dislike, but I
don't think they were very good ones. The name, for example, could be
changed. We could have an alias called `thumbs' which would call
`tumme', if we wanted (if Thumbs was to be removed). About the
overhead, well, as long as the user does not see it, what's the
problem? ...

Anyway, my main point is that it feels like a waste of resources to
keep both packages. The packages are very similar so I don't buy the
"choice" argument. The choice argument would be a better one if we
talked about the different MUAs, for example, which seems very
different in some cases.

About things that are missing in Tumme regards to what is there in
Thumbs: Tumme works for what I use it for, not strange considering I
made it to support what I want to do. This means I don't have a very
strong "itch" to merge more things into Tumme.