From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Pretest? Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:17:48 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87hcsuwk6w.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <86slc8w4or.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <86k5xkw335.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1173867492 16524 80.91.229.12 (14 Mar 2007 10:18:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "David Kastrup" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 14 11:18:05 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HRQYT-00010l-AN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:18:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRQZL-0000Jy-9U for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 05:18:55 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HRQZH-0000Jr-PU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:18:51 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HRQZD-0000Jf-7D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:18:50 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRQZD-0000Jc-2N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 05:18:47 -0500 Original-Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.185]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HRQYK-0002JL-F1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:17:52 -0400 Original-Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id n15so135143nfc for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:17:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Rfw9nzpCWWRYTHLVLvhJqc7yMUGpmvuewxJqApCcsHPJOAVhWObfspbEcurbRbB3BEM+pTAsgRXVrXjSbzmD24AX+bTVyoCQFM2GfHlUkSnW4f9cUFIVc/PmtukTGro6fOO2bm9VbenuhUmTBxIEQPeG+ouCZWwCObdWFNsbWW8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=HotN6I5Lz6xdIUVS8TKzaglij+l1Gi6uecl+ywokquvClw7aCwQTwLHVhULIynWmDEvjaRLQMHs+c6BpS5zUh+sBvX+OWFpeFF9znHvj4yOph3Cycy6/N6Pt/qFtKg8uNTxnJ1gthJmHXSFTGf3b1++UyVEEOZon/ZpiFric5CM= Original-Received: by 10.114.37.1 with SMTP id k1mr2807487wak.1173867468202; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:17:48 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.114.234.16 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:17:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <86k5xkw335.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 (Google crawlbot) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:67916 Archived-At: On 3/14/07, David Kastrup wrote: > What is "curious" about that? I proposed what I consider a pretty > logical and consistent way of dealing with emacsclient calls, and then > mentioned a drawback of this for a certain setting. > > And now you call it curious that what I mention as a drawback does not > strike you as the best behavior? > > Curious. Please, don't be so jumpy, because I tend to answer in the same mood and that leads to me being labeled as "aggressive" pretty fast :) My "curious" was meant as "it is curious how wildly different expectations are from one user (or indeed, developer) to another". No judgement, no implication that my choice was better, no nothing but a little wonder about human variability (and irritability, I would add as an afterthought). Honestly: I just read an old thread from September 2005 where some people was hopeful that 22.1 could be released that same year. So I'm now just a little sad, and the issue of whether emacsclient interrupts or not seems less and less important to me. I'd only like to ask that an option be left somewhere so overeager interrupters like me can do our thing without having to hack server.el. Juanma