From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Terje Bless Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 01:58:54 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87adrypnjn.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019351901 21569 127.0.0.1 (21 Apr 2002 01:18:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 01:18:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , bradym@balestra.org, xemacs-design@xemacs.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16z5zh-0005bm-00 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 03:18:21 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16z5zg-0005mo-00 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 03:18:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16z5zW-0005Ys-00; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:18:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.wavelan.no ([217.144.228.111] helo=isa) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16z5wS-0005Mx-00; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:15:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [217.144.228.69] by isa (ArGoSoft Mail Server Pro for WinNT/2000/XP, Version 1.8 (1.8.1.1)); Sun, 21 Apr 2002 03:17:32 +0200 Original-To: Miles Bader X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <87adrypnjn.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> X-Mailer: Mailsmith Prerelease (Blindsider) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:2891 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:2891 Miles Bader wrote: >"Eli Zaretskii" writes: >>As for buffers, I disagree that it's unused in the context used by >>Emacs. I've seen several editors that do the same. > >And anyway, buffers are _not_ the same as `files' or `documents', and >indeed, the name quite accurately describes what it does (and >corresponds directly to the concept of a buffer you say you're used to >doing OS work). Sometimes there's a one-to-one correspondence between >buffers and files, but quite often there's not. Once a user learns >about this, he can use this advantage. This is beside the point I was making. I don't think about putting a file into a buffer so I can edit it and then write the buffer back to disk. I think about editing a file. Going through the translation from how I think about this task and how it happens to be implemented is an extra burden for me. In point of fact I _don't_ mind the use of "buffer" in (X)Emacs. Partially it's not relevant (for non-file buffers) and partly I'm used to it. It's also a rather small issue. The reason I brought it up is because this way of _thinking_ about it is, in my opinion, important. And not just for Windows people or novices, but for more experienced people as well. Not everyone can be an expert at everything; those that aren't expert (merely competent) with Emacs would benefit greatly from any improvement in it's human interaction. In fact, just about the only group of people who would benefit little or not at all from it are those that are experts at Emacs. -- By definition there is __no_way__ any problem can be my fault. Any problems you think you can find in my code are all in your imagination. If you continue with such derranged imaginings then I may be forced to perform corrective brain surgery... with an axe. -- Stephen Harris