From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Oleh Krehel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: A simple solution to "Upcoming loss of usability ..." Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:40:18 +0200 Message-ID: <87zj3mex3x.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87egkzg7gb.fsf@gmail.com> <558C2E25.10303@cs.ucla.edu> <558C492E.9000705@yandex.ru> <558C7DE1.4060507@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1435304840 17679 80.91.229.3 (26 Jun 2015 07:47:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 07:47:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 26 09:47:13 2015 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 1Z8OLv-0005Na-63 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:47:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58702 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z8OLu-00083a-Jt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 03:47:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35200) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z8OLq-00081S-DC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 03:47:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z8OLn-0007ey-6S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 03:47:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]:33793) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z8OLn-0007eo-0F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 03:47:03 -0400 Original-Received: by wicnd19 with SMTP id nd19so37746166wic.1 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:47:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=Dn7yYTG+CAP6jOmL5qGXGllbel+35e7dYtyAXsfPdbQ=; b=Wvr1cF9saHdcMIRzGIAMeBg2kLxf/xZL61myxMDxPQRnPi8x8r+j20uTM5qQSsXXLc /PF7GkPdFLOhgb7Y1RqiFaqBViCdj02+k1P7hb5e469Cxd1CMgjMMHvag0LPNg19rjzZ CRjusbXxBhezPYTvTExIWjFjdB9oawxDhvoI8VpDOzHTfwxsjOfgDkqhfZl30C1e28zS +l7M16pkSA+JheLaHlPcrjuT74fZjNGB1y8vtCgkuvXBDeor7sK8/lX0XUiaXg3rWJDx oJTV6bbXvocBhcXEBCpQVcvMN0G4/vWus351TMRGat+2VlQZgnzuPnbTEw9OE+8S3TfV WoCA== X-Received: by 10.194.87.4 with SMTP id t4mr396804wjz.84.1435304822379; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from firefly (dyn069045.nbw.tue.nl. [131.155.69.45]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id r9sm49155919wjo.26.2015.06.26.00.47.01 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:47:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <558C7DE1.4060507@cs.ucla.edu> (Paul Eggert's message of "Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:17:05 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d 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:187554 Archived-At: Paul Eggert writes: > Third-party code doesn't need to change. It'll still work reasonably > well. By "reasonably well" you mean that 3rd party will use one notation while the Emacs sources will use another. I thought the whole purpose of the change was to make things "more clear" for new users. I think that the change makes it less clear. Especially if you consider that a new user is more likely to contribute to 3rd party Elisp projects before he starts to contribute to Emacs sources (or even starts to look at them). I know this because that was the case for me. I hope most people will agree that having two notations for one thing is bad for everyone: both novices and experts. There's one popular programming language with the motto: > There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. Look at what happened to it when they tried to mix things up: Python 3 was released in 2008. And I'm still using 2.7.6. Granted, I'm not a Python expert, but my impression is that many people still use 2.7.