From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Confused by y-or-n-p Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 07:46:37 -0800 (PST) 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> <83mtxqcauz.fsf@gnu.org> <83turva0y2.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="34764"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, Eli Zaretskii , juri@linkov.net, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Kangas , Gregory Heytings , Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 06 16:47:34 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 1kxB25-0008uR-NX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 16:47:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53740 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxB24-0003Nq-BW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 10:47:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40806) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxB1Q-0002Wi-2S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 10:46:52 -0500 Original-Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:42156) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxB1N-0001yQ-KG; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 10:46:51 -0500 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 106FXoaN031186; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:46:43 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=wp63xu+wcmGiFjFg81UkLdAKih0ZAsIkUAutTCgtJyQ=; b=KZIQeb/RGTIezeZRTUPFVIZZpcErgEdHbgxwfs2jb4kzgzP68ddQsYuEoQkz70Vc8bJT 2vOszUfCaiHtxX5hNgye/p7CLgrowLxqPh0PomVuD568hZZ/eoWCYhqNTkK1E0En4cAJ MfcJFJ3mtD8SUO2cP0t3LYeAZDH1taeAhjVP5g2Vf3MtfQ+bgxnY1yvmZg52t/qvMoDa ro3tigURBiAMyuvLtFW8X5fuXEkktbRdZzsvwSMR51qHWwfOFMdOTr53yPrCvbKlCKO/ dES2q4wP+dAswnqYtCc+rwWPDhgkSQtNKKcrHPUTGf6bywQ+PICQuQ9ZQzyRmveRR1L3 2Q== Original-Received: from userp3020.oracle.com (userp3020.oracle.com [156.151.31.79]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 35wftx83am-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 06 Jan 2021 15:46:43 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 106FUQmM162295; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:46:43 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 35w3qs6mh8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 06 Jan 2021 15:46:43 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0002.oracle.com (abhmp0002.oracle.com [141.146.116.8]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 106FkclR017442; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:46:38 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.5095.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9855 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=981 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2101060097 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9855 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2101060097 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=156.151.31.86; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=userp2130.oracle.com X-Spam_score_int: -46 X-Spam_score: -4.7 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.252, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:262608 Archived-At: > No, a rule is obviously stronger than a guideline. Some rules are stronger than guidelines, no doubt, however one might define rule, guideline, and strength for each. A guideline is a rule. A rule is not necessarily a guideline. Effective strength of a rule doesn't necessarily come from the rule itself; it comes from its enforcement. Put differently, just what's meant by the strength of a rule? In country X they have very strict driving speed limits. But the enforcement is limited. Every few years they clamp down further on the amount of blood alcohol allowed. But without enforcing such a "strong" rule the additional "strength" is meaningless.