Defaulting to fancy diary display

Defaulting to fancy diary display

[Glenn Morris]

I should like to change the default of diary-display-function from
diary-simple-display to diary-fancy-display.

The fancy display allows for many more features than the simple one
does (sorting, including, sexps etc); but these features are only
relevant if you use them, so they will not confuse new users.

The only advantage of the simple display is that you can edit the
diary file directly. I would argue that this is actually confusing for
most users - non-relevant text is made invisible, so what you are
editing is only a portion of the real file. In particular, if you
copy/paste information, you can inadvertently paste invisible text.
When you want to edit the file, it is better to edit it as a normal
file.

I believe the fancy display is a better default for most users.

Re: Defaulting to fancy diary display

[Stefan Monnier]

> I should like to change the default of diary-display-function from
> diary-simple-display to diary-fancy-display.

I'd tend to agree,


        Stefan

RE: Defaulting to fancy diary display

[Drew Adams]

> > I should like to change the default of diary-display-function from
> > diary-simple-display to diary-fancy-display.
> 
> I'd tend to agree,

FWIW (not much) - 

I haven't used the Emacs calendar and diary for a very long time. But when I did
use them heavily, 20 years ago, that was my opinion also: the default should be
`diary-fancy-display'. So if it's anything like it used to be...

Re: Defaulting to fancy diary display

[Teemu Likonen]

On 2009-09-02 21:07 (-0400), Glenn Morris wrote:

> I should like to change the default of diary-display-function from
> diary-simple-display to diary-fancy-display.
>
> The fancy display allows for many more features than the simple one
> does (sorting, including, sexps etc); but these features are only
> relevant if you use them, so they will not confuse new users.

I agree. Actually the fact that fancy is not the default got me
confused. First I didn't even realise that there are different diary
modes. I tried to get some features working but couldn't. I gave up but
then later understood to turn on the fancy mode. Maybe all this is
documented somewhere but this is how I found the difference between the
two diary modes.

Re: Defaulting to fancy diary display

[Sean Sieger]

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:

    I should like to change the default of diary-display-function from
    diary-simple-display to diary-fancy-display.

Would scratch an itch I've had for ten years.  Out of conservation (one
can't put everything in one's dotemacs) I've refused to put the change
in my initialization file for that long.

Re: Defaulting to fancy diary display

[Richard Stallman]

    The only advantage of the simple display is that you can edit the
    diary file directly.

I think this is a fundamental advantage.  I wish we could implement
the other features of fancy diary display while preserving this.

Re: Defaulting to fancy diary display

[Ed Reingold]

>     The only advantage of the simple display is that you can edit the
>     diary file directly.
> 
> I think this is a fundamental advantage.  I wish we could implement
> the other features of fancy diary display while preserving this.
> 

It's no advantage at all; it is a fundamental DISadvantage to have the default 
be the simple file with lines concealed.  Of course that is the file you need 
to edit, but what you want to look at in the processed file, ie the fancy 
form.  It's like insisting that you only look at the .tex file, never the .pdf 
output.  The present setup is (and always was) a dumb decision (not mine!).

Re: Defaulting to fancy diary display

[Leo]

On 2009-09-03 19:02 +0100, Ed Reingold wrote:
>>     The only advantage of the simple display is that you can edit the
>>     diary file directly.
>> 
>> I think this is a fundamental advantage.  I wish we could implement
>> the other features of fancy diary display while preserving this.
>> 
>
> It's no advantage at all; it is a fundamental DISadvantage to have the default 
> be the simple file with lines concealed.  Of course that is the file you need 
> to edit, but what you want to look at in the processed file, ie the fancy 
> form.  It's like insisting that you only look at the .tex file, never the .pdf 
> output.  The present setup is (and always was) a dumb decision (not mine!).

Maybe even consider making diary-simple-display obsolete.

-- 
Leo's Emacs uptime: 1 day, 7 hours, 39 minutes, 29 seconds

Re: Defaulting to fancy diary display

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

>     The only advantage of the simple display is that you can edit the
>     diary file directly.
>
> I think this is a fundamental advantage. 

I agree that it is _an_ advantage (perhaps the only one) of the simple
display. I already said, however, that I think it is not a good default.

It will be as simple as 

(setq diary-display-function 'diary-simple-display)

for those like yourself who wish to keep using this.

> I wish we could implement the other features of fancy diary display
> while preserving this.

Sorry, but I see no way to do this.


Leo wrote:

> Maybe even consider making diary-simple-display obsolete.

No.

Re: Defaulting to fancy diary display

[Richard Stallman]

    >     The only advantage of the simple display is that you can edit the
    >     diary file directly.
    > 
    > I think this is a fundamental advantage.  I wish we could implement
    > the other features of fancy diary display while preserving this.
    > 

    It's no advantage at all; it is a fundamental DISadvantage to have the default 
    be the simple file with lines concealed.  Of course that is the file you need 
    to edit, but what you want to look at in the processed file, ie the fancy 
    form.

The fancy processed form is more useful to look at.
At the same time, it is an advantage to be able to edit the
same form that you look at.

The ideal would be to combine both advantages:
to display the diary  as in fancy mode
AND let you edit it and save it.

Maybe this can be implemented now with buffer swapping,
a la RMail Edit mode.

      It's like insisting that you only look at the .tex file, never the .pdf 
    output.

I see it as like using a WYSIWYG word processor where the version you
see is also editable.

Re: Defaulting to fancy diary display

[Stefan Monnier]

>> I wish we could implement the other features of fancy diary display
>> while preserving this.
> Sorry, but I see no way to do this.

There are ways to do it.  Look up "view update problem", and/or read
Benjamin Pierce's articles on "lenses".
It'd probably represent a significant amount of work.


        Stefan

Re: Defaulting to fancy diary display

[Glenn Morris]

Stefan Monnier wrote:

> There are ways to do it.  Look up "view update problem", and/or read
> Benjamin Pierce's articles on "lenses".
> It'd probably represent a significant amount of work.

OK, I'll put this on the wishlist for the future.
I don't see it as a prerequisite for the change in default that I proposed.

Re: Defaulting to fancy diary display

[Richard Stallman]

It might not be very hard to implement editing the fancy diary display
using an approach similar to that of Rmail Edit mode, which detects
the changes made in the display buffer and copies them into the real
home of the text.  This would avoid the need for new basic mechanisms.

The hardest issue I see is when to perform that updating.
In Rmail Edit mode, that's simple: you do it when the user exits
edit mode.  If the fancy diary display is always writable, people
could edit it and move away from it and be surprised that their
changes were lost.

Re: Defaulting to fancy diary display

[Stefan Monnier]

> I don't see it as a prerequisite for the change in default that I proposed.

100% agreement.  Especially since the simple display is still an option
for those who like to edit it.


        Stefan