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: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 19:44:30 -0500 Message-ID: References: <834kkcr1eo.fsf@gnu.org> <83im8qnyca.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 Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="14707"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Gregory Heytings , rudalics@gmx.at, Eli Zaretskii , rms@gnu.org, juri@linkov.net To: Gregory Heytings via "Emacs development discussions." Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 06 01:46:09 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 1kwwxl-0003gK-Es for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 01:46:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51494 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kwwxk-0007vM-C0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 19:46:08 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45242) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kwwwG-0007NY-W4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 19:44:39 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:56340) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kwwwE-0005Sr-Dk; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 19:44:35 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AE77244113E; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 19:44:32 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 62A1C441132; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 19:44:31 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1609893871; bh=ycfhcE4nGdSBE/ZfJ3jNbwkiZsLHv48rXE4bLH4dRIY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=i9D6bTuadWo6ubDBDKUioH39U7Bvgy9Z4pFZDQX/JERFIEcktL84bAe3YXGdIQBTd 8gDwbk5zXPeoigkw3M8oxfToPH2J9swLmMl2si5c2k3vHQgvoBWkIgzIK79rtdTwlJ To8JmbZGLa6W8APUpmpFxW6JoevPrEquTsPmSd7pBY3r09bvuapQeQ3OkOWCEMZG6Z hQ5qNbdlHEbPNpRX83aHNMb60o2CtwPRYL+PSXiZSpPqhZQ5rwbjq4cPYej5OdFTD6 EFFLEzX49aIh3rjDsPvbqo6cptbO2N3dsswubSiy3Ly6rfiUA3sr2XUpYfaBihABmS 1G0gPz2DJtmCg== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [104.247.243.191]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0234312050E; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 19:44:30 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Gregory Heytings via's message of "Wed, 06 Jan 2021 00:14:21 +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:262555 Archived-At: > I agree with you that this is already happening in the vast majority of > cases, so why would it be problematic to make this a rule, that in principle > any change to Emacs' behavior should provide a way to re-enable the old > behavior? IIUC that's all Richard wants. Of course that rule would not > apply to bugfixes, and exceptions would be possible with the explicit > approval of a maintainer. The problem is that I disagree with your "Of course": the whole difficulty is to decide which change falls in this category. The problem is not that we don't follow the rule or that we don't have such a rule. It's that there's no hard-and-fast way to decide where that rule should apply: it's a judgment call and often this call is non-trivial (what one person calls "feature" qualifies as "bug fix" for another, what should be a cosmetic change may end up unexpectedly changing behavior), which is why sometimes it takes feedback from users to realize we got it wrong. Stefan