From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: The unwarranted scrolling assumption Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:41:56 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87631jvpzg.fsf@gmail.com> <4C18211C.3070106@harpegolden.net> <87vd9j5neu.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> <83sk4misf2.fsf@gnu.org> <83iq5hiiin.fsf@gnu.org> <83fx0lihov.fsf@gnu.org> <838w6cixma.fsf@gnu.org> <83y6ech1oo.fsf@gnu.org> <83ocf8gx7e.fsf@gnu.org> <83fx0jgxk7.fsf@gnu.org> <83eig3gspa.fsf@gnu.org> <83bpb7gp2g.fsf@gnu.org> <837hlvglvh.fsf@gnu.org> <834ogzglaj.fsf@gnu.org> <8339wjgg8w.fsf@gnu.org> <83y6eagb7g.fsf@gnu.org> <83vd9eg9j1.fsf@gnu.org> <83r5k2g1qa.fsf@gnu.org> <83eig1g21p.fsf@gnu.org> <83aaqpfu1m.fsf@gnu.org> <838w69f61l.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1277120551 2344 80.91.229.12 (21 Jun 2010 11:42:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:42:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 21 13:42:30 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQfOX-0001Ak-Aj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:42:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42796 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OQfOW-0003MB-BC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:42:28 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=56797 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OQfOM-0003LD-Lt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:42:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQfOL-00051O-8q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:42:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-gx0-f169.google.com ([209.85.161.169]:43515) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQfOL-00051A-3r; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:42:17 -0400 Original-Received: by gxk2 with SMTP id 2so392275gxk.0 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:42:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=z2J9e/4hO/jbnHKqGeI+zpTS51hlA3fzACc6aNPavvc=; b=WKO37QtzlLNTyf0MYXaYhLX/2t7i8YjmfLJzCTG95u+15tpGCacZhmlhudZanZ0tnV uKmzDmrzjLZsmBBm07qB5gGG6SPkQY1vK+u6dKlTnfmQbrA+srCLVKzUZSDPZodXSVlA q0JSF2lsimMwbUMXiF+wELDzVhNEJBpEaYKxI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=e8lQ4i7+yo5sFd35t11Z8yt6OAgrc5wd86iCA+Hd66+KJh7+coiZ5nO0H3RILT/l5I 5SD+CuN2zKEa00XJJrbnVLT4jjU9BwOjgfbzMBkafRXP1yBgrLVk91ydU8CmbOyeC7xL PSRXoADnYYOqakp2RN2u1kq4FpbbVpwcZFBU0= Original-Received: by 10.101.192.24 with SMTP id u24mr1343154anp.181.1277120536080; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:42:16 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.100.154.15 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:41:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:126299 Archived-At: On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Juanma Barranquero wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 13:21, Lennart Borgman > wrote: > >> So how could I mention what you said? Or should I never mention it? > > No, of course I don't mean that (it wasn't private communication, > after all). It's just that it seems like, because *I* recommended a > way, Eli *should* have answered. And I'm stressing that my > recommendation and anyone else's participation on this (or any other) > conversation are mutually independent events. It was a hard decision for me to make whether to mention your recommendation to explain more carefully or not. If I did not mention it it would have been as if I did not care to explain because your message somehow implied that too. And when I did mention what you wrote I might put more pressure on Eli which was not what I wanted. And if I did not mention it it would have been like I was hopelessly begging for someone to care about what I have suggested. So I just did what I did to see if this could move things further without anyone got too much feelings of being insulted. >> Yes, it is possible that I am going too fast. The possibilities for >> misunderstandings are very huge since we mostly do not know each other >> except for what we read and write here. We do not know much about each >> others situation. > > Agreed. But it is hard to imagine a situation that requires solving > this scrolling problem in the next few hours ;-) Yes, if we can get back to that.