Re: d-s-m default: Nil + explanation!

[Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:24 AM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
> Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Memnon Anon
>> <gegendosenfleisch@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I wanted to give a small explanation, why I think Nil is the better
>>> default.
>>
>> Thanks for giving your opinion.
>>
>>
>>> I think changing to D-S-M as a default is throwing dust into the eyes of
>>> the new users: Emacs is different. And without a minimal willingness to
>>> read the documentation, one will certainly fail.
>>
>> I see no reason that they should have to read something before they
>> can do even the simplest editing.
>
> There is no point in reverting to polemics until we have even decided
> what we are talking about.

I do not think what I said is just polemics. I tried to describe how
users can be expected to behave today. This is an important point.

I do not have time to dig into research of this question now, but if
you know some it would be great (and I would be very surprised if I
was wrong in this particular case).


> Any attempts of mine to narrow down the issue to separately decidable
> (and configurable) issues have been ignored: one or two postings later
> we are back to polemics.

I have pointed to that it looks lik better integration with cua-mode
is needed, but I have got no reply to that.