From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Confused by y-or-n-p Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 02:41:21 -0500 Message-ID: References: <834kkcr1eo.fsf@gnu.org> <83bleinmse.fsf@gnu.org> <56435592-d2d0-5fb6-977f-01e1931da835@gmx.at> <87k0t38g1z.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83czyvkts6.fsf@gnu.org> <87bleetirr.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87y2hhri3n.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83pn2tkfg8.fsf@gnu.org> <871rf7ippu.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83a6trg6mc.fsf@gnu.org> <87im8f951f.fsf@gnus.org> <83lfdacapo.fsf@gnu.org> <83wnwra15u.fsf@gnu.org> <83o8i23fht.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="19833"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: ghe@sdf.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 07 08:42:31 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kxPwF-00053O-7n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 08:42:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57974 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxPwE-0006HB-9p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 02:42:30 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57066) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxPvC-0005rv-G4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 02:41:26 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:51158) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxPvC-0005Qv-8c; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 02:41:26 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kxPv7-0003gb-3O; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 02:41:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <83o8i23fht.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Wed, 06 Jan 2021 05:34:38 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:262647 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > It is very easy to compare without having both behaviors in the same > > > binary: just keep old binaries around. Highly recommended. > > > > That's what I do, too. But you can't expect regular users to do this to > > compare two behaviors in order to give feedback. > Why not? This is not about any user, this is about people who track > the Emacs development. I keep old binaries around, because I know that the new build may have difficulties. (That happened to me in the past year.) People who are deeping into testing Emacs during development will find this a good thing to do. But testing by comparing two binaries won't be as convenient as testing by flipping a variable during one session. In one minute you can toggle the option variable and try your command again. You can try 10 minutes of editing this way and 10 minutes that way, without having to visit your files again. Making an option variable for each possibly controversial change is a favor to everyone. -- Dr Richard Stallman Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)