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: always put Customizations in `custom-file', never in `user-init-file' Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:09:04 -0800 Message-ID: References: <475DBF19.4050501@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1197328216 5321 80.91.229.12 (10 Dec 2007 23:10:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:10:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Stephen J. Turnbull" , Emacs-Devel To: "Lennart Borgman \(gmail\)" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 11 00:10:26 2007 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 4.50) id 1J1rlX-0007iG-He for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:10:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1rlF-000523-Kh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:10:05 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J1rkm-0004lw-C1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:09:36 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J1rkk-0004l9-Fj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:09:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1rkk-0004l5-Ak for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:09:34 -0500 Original-Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com ([148.87.113.118]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J1rkj-0007X8-Sl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:09:34 -0500 Original-Received: from agmgw2.us.oracle.com (agmgw2.us.oracle.com [152.68.180.213]) by rgminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id lBAN9Tbe028610; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:09:30 -0700 Original-Received: from acsmt351.oracle.com (acsmt351.oracle.com [141.146.40.151]) by agmgw2.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.0/Switch-3.2.0) with ESMTP id lBAH1bXb009125; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:09:29 -0700 Original-Received: from dhcp-4op11-4op12-west-130-35-178-158.us.oracle.com by acsmt350.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3427977071197328141; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:09:01 -0800 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <475DBF19.4050501@gmail.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:84997 Archived-At: > > `custom-file' would not be loaded automatically, but only > > when (where) the user requests via (load-file custom-file). > > If you do not mean that custom-file should be loaded automatically then > I must have misunderstood you. Yes, I think you did. I said that `custom-file' would be loaded explicitly: (load-file custom-file). Just as it is now. All I proposed was that any Customize stuff currently in `user-init-file' should be moved to `custom-file'. > I thought it would be a good idea to by > default have custom-file separate, You were right. And not just by default. > but as Jason points out there was > probably a good reason why this was not done from the beginning. So what you thought would be a good idea turns out in fact to be a bad idea simply because someone designed the status quo? Sheesh! You say you don't know what the arguments behind the design were, but, although unknown, the fact that they "probably" existed is enough to convince you to change your mind? We need never think again: our world is a product of decisions and other actions, many of which were "probably" made consciously. Let it be. What kind of an argument is that? Of course there was "probably a good reason". That doesn't mean that the best decision was made then or, a fortiori, that that decision is also the best decision now. If you want to make specific arguments, whether repeated from a previous discussion or not, please do. But let's not argue only from authority, saying that whatever is, is right. > Though I can't remember that reason now. Maybe it had something > to do with the order of loading? Maybe it was some problem > with custom-set-variables from the beginning? Maybe those maybe's don't help. What about the order of loading? With an explicit (load-file custom-file), you can have any order you like. What problem with custom-set-variables from the beginning? It doesn't help here to grasp at straws or appeal to authority. Let's discuss the pros and cons and forget about imagining what someone might have thought about this long ago, if it was in fact thought about in this way. This is nuts. We can't have a discussion if as soon as someone says, in effect, "that's the way it is because that's the way it was decided" we stop thinking about it.