From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Confused by y-or-n-p Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 21:10:27 -0500 Message-ID: References: <834kkcr1eo.fsf@gnu.org> <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> <83v9c8ltys.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30181"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: rms@gnu.org, juri@linkov.net, rudalics@gmx.at, stefankangas@gmail.com, Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 08 03:11:09 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 1kxhF6-0007kM-T8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 03:11:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38348 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxhF5-000251-Tn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 21:11:07 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55644) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxhEY-0001eo-Ba for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 21:10:34 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:4614) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxhEV-0007v4-UT; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 21:10:33 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C32A7441337; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 21:10:29 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5C036441335; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 21:10:28 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1610071828; bh=tl4Bm14WOIUAMmeMi/BeGl/aYGp/vIBMq5wG1dn8SiU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Q7JEX262jU2Hddz0DyMkmdjma4JQ48Hb3awJDZmQA8ZWro1zp2V6fIXDQitmkGsNq 7VN38tEaHLLpTbQWgaxpahRbGqQSbar4zF5zHNzWQXOn3LrWpAmrb0fmoIf9CB1QSq R/yN4JKOIdRqSibTQ9mJkpYGTZZsDGy4czoxVTMI6hQiBkiM/lNE0NuQzXB/nwTap8 a/HShxoW5eq+LpNTIphob3KQRG29uUKqOx5jIWnhcVg/epQsmTd7hD1f5hezmQw2k2 wQNkuz+5a38SiuLJC6tPKnZlwuLNrlahDJS5MzdxaxzvHGdpNjgcnM/G7BedNz9FeC H0mdTVkR9avxw== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [45.72.224.181]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F395912037C; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 21:10:27 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Gregory Heytings's message of "Thu, 07 Jan 2021 23:34:09 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=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:262723 Archived-At: > Alas, this is not what is happening there. The old behavior has been lost, > and the developer who initiated these changes still firmly believes that > the old behavior is "an ad hoc unsystematic mess, not worthy even of being > called a behaviour", that it is "chaotic", that it is an "abstruse "design" > [that] can only have arisen by accident", that it "would get rejected out > of hand, and indeed ridiculed" if it were proposed now. In spite of this, > an approximation of the old behavior is now planned, and I'm supposed to > document where that current approximation differs from the old behavior, to > fix the current approximation. There is of course no chance that the > behavior of an UI element as complex as the minibuffer could ever be > recovered by working that way. I don't always agree with Alan, but I think in this case his analysis is about right (tho his wording may be less diplomatic than I'd put it): based on looking at the code, I think it's clear that the old behavior was not the result of conscious design, but rather the result of ad-hoc fixes for specific situations. Based on the experience with the new code, I agree with you that the old behavior, while ad-hoc, was a fairly good middle-ground. But I think it's valuable to work back from that old ad-hoc solution and try and re-implement it in a more "conscious design" way. The end result will probably not be 100% identical, but it should help us get a code we understand better, compared to the old code whose logic was very much unclear. IOW, I think the right way to look at it is as a refactoring, which clarifies the code and brings new alternative behaviors. Stefan