From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "John Wiegley" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: IDE Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 14:40:54 -0700 Organization: New Artisans LLC Message-ID: References: <83si5r106e.fsf@gnu.org> <831td9z18h.fsf@gnu.org> <5612E996.7090700@yandex.ru> <83bnc7tavr.fsf@gnu.org> <5618C92A.3040207@yandex.ru> <83a8rrt9ag.fsf@gnu.org> <5618D376.1080700@yandex.ru> <831td3t62e.fsf@gnu.org> <5618E51D.4070800@yandex.ru> <83twpzrp05.fsf@gnu.org> <5618ED93.8000001@yandex.ru> <83lhbbrnn7.fsf@gnu.org> <56191D6B.8040405@yandex.ru> <838u7assvj.fsf@gnu.org> <561A3582.5080806@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444600381 12734 80.91.229.3 (11 Oct 2015 21:53:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:53:01 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 11 23:52:56 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlOY2-0001q3-3R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 23:52:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49890 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlOY1-0005FP-BA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:52:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45383) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlOXW-0005Em-Kh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:52:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlOXT-0004ZJ-ER for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:52:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]:32932) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlOXT-0004ZC-8L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:52:19 -0400 Original-Received: by pabrc13 with SMTP id rc13so677747pab.0 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 14:52:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:date:organization:message-id :references:user-agent:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=bXn7OcpsZqQ6Qy/5hYGW6BWdgydpwBD5p/d0GfKJAnA=; b=uilZ78SqGYaV4/dEOIJXmJ1Tqv5KzIE8wH3qBR6Uoq5vrq9NKq1T1hTLOcdSa5QuVS hGq+ph8sDu2m7r5YM2gS0DGsihgzY2zIwESS1spYcZboMOFUUkYBF+wkGYFwkVTj9Cmj 6h+DqenXHcAV5EvYSb5aZk+3shEeBXOrqLEOJ6ITh/aEfled35STQfG0ht0fry6TUDje qoqIKmOW2HSSY1d5z0uKVFhDGKazPkMw39YNWjWHvre2pKtjHH4LdrYLO8n9Ff7ZZZAe zdDw4HL5Dk22UnLmDYP92MKmfXe8AwQ0yjx7ZiYezPLQunXVTPJhXBYeT7gPqZQxVC6J ssVw== X-Received: by 10.69.1.5 with SMTP id bc5mr30247192pbd.151.1444600338510; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 14:52:18 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from Vulcan.local (76-234-68-79.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net. [76.234.68.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ya10sm14293340pbc.69.2015.10.11.14.52.16 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 11 Oct 2015 14:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by Vulcan.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4AE4BF2BB6F4; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 14:52:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:53:46 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:191278 Archived-At: >>>>> Richard Stallman writes: > Lots of subtle details of how Emacs commands behave in various situations > are convenient for some users. Users have chosen their usage based on those > details. A simple and clean scheme to make things uniform can be very > elegant, and yet make many users unhappy. I do agree with this. Any uniform core must allow for the idiosyncratic behaviors people have come to rely upon. If we find this cannot be done, I'd give up on the attempt. What I want to explore is whether things can be better. We have great unification in some areas, and I've a sense there are more opportunities if we can build the right layers of abstraction. John