From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Customize buttons that change user's custom fileshouldaskforconfirmation Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:51:46 -0500 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1107811565 8471 80.91.229.2 (7 Feb 2005 21:26:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 21:26:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: abraham@dina.kvl.dk, lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, storm@cua.dk, snogglethorpe@gmail.com, miles@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 07 22:26:04 2005 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CyGOM-0003KI-Vu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:25:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CyGcZ-0002nE-8B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:40:39 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1CyGPi-0004rZ-8J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:27:22 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1CyGPb-0004pP-Mp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:27:19 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CyGPZ-0004YK-6w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:27:13 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CyFuX-0001Ie-Ua for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:55:09 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CyFrG-0006ko-8Z; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:51:46 -0500 Original-To: "Drew Adams" In-reply-to: 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 X-MailScanner-To: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:33051 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:33051 "F => C", and then (sometime later) sets option Y on the same page, and then does "F => C,S", the effect is that the change to X is also saved. This may be highly confusing to a user. Good point. We need to somehow make crystal clear that the buttons and menubar menu items apply to _each_ option in the buffer. Possible ways include 1) using the word "All" in menu and button names and 2) asking for confirmation, warning that _all_ options are concerned. It could display the list of options that will be saved, and ask for confirmation, much as Dired does when you operate on marked files. Clear All is not the right name for this, in any case. The term "Clear" commonly refers to merely emptying an edit field. We don't have such an operation (and we don't need it) - the closest operation we have is what you are calling Cancel. Cancel and "Clear All" will be confused. I'm not sure what you have in mind for this operation to do. Could you say? C => F (Reset from Current) S => F (Reset from Saved) D => F (Reset from Standard) Using the combined Reset buttons would mean we have only Set, Save, and Reset. Any reset action should display a feedback message saying 1) that (all) the _edit fields_ have been reset from and 2) you can _set_ the current values to these fields with Set. I wouldn't use the term "reset" for these. I am not sure whether the change from S => F,C into S => F is a good idea. I still believe "Erase" is needed. Maybe "Erase All"? It should of course ask for confirmation. (It does not belong under "Get All".) By "Erase" do you mean the current Erase Customization functionality or something else? I thought that we had more or less agreed to separate the two functionalities that are mixed today in Erase Customization. Yes.