Menu again.

Menu again.

[David Kastrup]

I have just had a user complain in a German Usenet group that
"Options/Truncate Long Lines in this buffer" is not saved when you use
"Save Options".

Now anybody with half a brain should be able to figure out that since
"this buffer" does not exist in the next Emacs session, there is
nothing to save here.  While in the long run, I don't think Emacs will
appeal to people without the ability to think straight, it might
perhaps be prudent to remove this particular option, which is the only
one that only applies to "this buffer" in the Options menu, as far as
I can see.

With regard to moving the "Blinking Cursor" option away from the top
menu into the submenu "Appearance" (with this new name instead of the
previous "Hide/Show"): the only complaints that I heard were
procedural complaints about me not waiting long enough before I
install such a change.  When people said something about the idea
itself, it seemed supportive.  It's been now about 3 days, so I shall
go ahead and do that.  If I misunderstood something, reverting is
always possible.

With regard to my other proposal, switching the order of the
"Customize Emacs" and "Save Options" menu, it has been pointed out
that the current order is important to inform the user that "Save
Options" will not save any options set by "Customize Emacs".

I offered to implement that "Save Options" would prompt and offer to
save also unsaved Options set by "Customize", making it possible to
switch the order of options into the customary one while giving the
user a less subtle hint about what happens.

However, no agreement could be reached about the proper way to address
the problem.  As a result, things are going to stay as they are there
absent of divine intervention.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Menu again.

[Jason Rumney]

David Kastrup wrote:

>Now anybody with half a brain should be able to figure out that since
>"this buffer" does not exist in the next Emacs session, there is
>nothing to save here.  While in the long run, I don't think Emacs will
>appeal to people without the ability to think straight, it might
>perhaps be prudent to remove this particular option, which is the only
>one that only applies to "this buffer" in the Options menu, as far as
>I can see.
>  
>
Its also one of the only options that I ever find the need to change 
once I've set up Emacs with my preferred options.

Re: Menu again.

[David Kastrup]

Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>Now anybody with half a brain should be able to figure out that since
>>"this buffer" does not exist in the next Emacs session, there is
>>nothing to save here.  While in the long run, I don't think Emacs will
>>appeal to people without the ability to think straight, it might
>>perhaps be prudent to remove this particular option, which is the only
>>one that only applies to "this buffer" in the Options menu, as far as
>>I can see.
>>  
>>
> Its also one of the only options that I ever find the need to change
> once I've set up Emacs with my preferred options.

Of course.  Because you can't save this "preferred option".  All
options that you can save usually don't need changing once you set
them up.  I am not arguing that the option is without use, I am just
arguing that its presence in the Options menu, as a buffer-specific
option, in the position it is in, is confusing.  And that this
confusion has been cited to me in a Usenet group as an example that
Emacs does not offer a coherent user interface.

The order of "Save Options" and "Customize Emacs" is presumably
interchanged to make it clear to people that Customized options will
not get saved.  And neither is "Truncate Long Lines in this Buffer",
and it is right in the middle of the options that _are_ saved.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Menu again.

[Luc Teirlinck]

David Kastrup wrote:

   With regard to moving the "Blinking Cursor" option away from the top
   menu into the submenu "Appearance" (with this new name instead of the
   previous "Hide/Show"): the only complaints that I heard were
   procedural complaints about me not waiting long enough before I
   install such a change.  When people said something about the idea
   itself, it seemed supportive.  It's been now about 3 days, so I shall
   go ahead and do that.  If I misunderstood something, reverting is
   always possible.

The objections have been formulated before:

All the options in Hide/Show hide/show something, in the usual sense
these words have in English.  blink-cursor-mode does not hide/show the
cursor.  It does not belong in this group.  That is why Richard asked
to commit it at top level.  Hide/Sow is a much more accurate
description of what the group contains than "Appearance".

Sincerely,

Luc.

Re: Menu again.

[David Kastrup]

Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>    With regard to moving the "Blinking Cursor" option away from the top
>    menu into the submenu "Appearance" (with this new name instead of the
>    previous "Hide/Show"): the only complaints that I heard were
>    procedural complaints about me not waiting long enough before I
>    install such a change.  When people said something about the idea
>    itself, it seemed supportive.  It's been now about 3 days, so I shall
>    go ahead and do that.  If I misunderstood something, reverting is
>    always possible.
>
> The objections have been formulated before:
>
> All the options in Hide/Show hide/show something, in the usual sense
> these words have in English.

So where is the toolbar hidden when it is off?

> blink-cursor-mode does not hide/show the cursor.  It does not belong
> in this group.

That is one of the reason that it was proposed to rename "Hide/Show"
to "Appearance".  Please don't argue straw men.

> That is why Richard asked to commit it at top level.

That is news to me.  It was placed at the top level because you said
that the level of visual discomfort the blinking cursor was giving you
made it hard to stand it as long as was needed to disable it.  In
order to address that concern, the --no-blinking-cursor command line
option was introduced.

> Hide/Sow is a much more accurate description of what the group
> contains than "Appearance".

Whatever.  We had that discussion long ago, and the general opinion,
as given by the outcome of the discussion, in my view differs from
yours.

Since I don't have either the time or the nerve to quibble further, I
will not do anything at all.  And I must say that I am disgusted.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Menu again.

[Luc Teirlinck]

I do not have the time to keep answering all the arguments you have
already repeated 1001 times and which already have been answered before.

Just one:

   > That is why Richard asked to commit it at top level.

   That is news to me.

>From Richard's message of March 4:

  That is persuasive evidence; I am convinced.  Since this does not
  fit in the Show/Hide menu, let's add it at top level.

  Would someone please do that?

This was after you already presented the arguments you just repeated
once more.

If you do not believe me:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2005-03/msg00235.html

Sincerely,

Luc.

Re: Menu again.

[Kim F. Storm]

Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu> writes:

> I do not have the time to keep answering all the arguments you have
> already repeated 1001 times and which already have been answered before.
.. without reaching consensus on the issue!!!


Can we take a poll on this issue and get done with it?


Please send me your votes on the following questions:

1) Rename Options=>Show/hide to Options=>Appearence ?
   [with suitable minor adjustments on the sub-menu]

   [ ] Yes  [ ] No


2) Move Options=>Blinking Cursor to Appearence submenu?

   [ ] Yes  [ ] No


3) Fix Options=>Save Options to offer to save unsaved Customize
   as suggested by David (below)?

   [ ] Yes  [ ] No

     > ... that "Save Options" would prompt and offer to save also
     > unsaved Options set by "Customize", making it possible to
     > switch the order of options into the customary one while giving
     > the user a less subtle hint about what happens.


I'll count and report the votes in 5 days from now.


-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Menu again.

[David Kastrup]

storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes:

> Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu> writes:
>
>> I do not have the time to keep answering all the arguments you have
>> already repeated 1001 times and which already have been answered before.
> .. without reaching consensus on the issue!!!
>
>
> Can we take a poll on this issue and get done with it?

Sounds sensible.  The problem is that your poll is "loaded": the
choices are not independent.  I'll try fixing it:

> Please send me your votes on the following questions:
>
> 1) Rename Options=>Show/hide to Options=>Appearence ?
>    [with suitable minor adjustments on the sub-menu]
>
>    [ ] Yes  [ ] No
>
> 2) Move Options=>Blinking Cursor to Appearence submenu?
>
>    [ ] Yes  [ ] No

This implies that 1) was answered with "Yes".  So let us replace it
with:

2a) If Appearance is the menu name, move Options=>Blinking Cursor there?
   [ ] Yes  [ ] No

2b) If Show/Hide is the menu name, move Options=>Blinking Cursor there?
   [ ] Yes  [ ] No

> 3) Fix Options=>Save Options to offer to save unsaved Customize
>    as suggested by David (below)?
>
>    [ ] Yes  [ ] No
>
>      > ... that "Save Options" would prompt and offer to save also
>      > unsaved Options set by "Customize", making it possible to
>      > switch the order of options into the customary one while giving
>      > the user a less subtle hint about what happens.

This mixes two questions/suggestions.  So this better be:

3) Fix Options=>Save Options to offer to save unsaved Customize
   as suggested by David (below)?

   [ ] Yes  [ ] No

     > ... that "Save Options" would prompt and offer to save also
     > unsaved Options set by "Customize".

4a) If 3 gets implemented, swap the order of "Save Options" and
    "Customize Emacs" to have "Save Options" at the bottom?

   [ ] Yes  [ ] No

4b) If 3 does not get implemented, still swap the order of "Save
    Options" and "Customize Emacs" to have "Save Options" at the
    bottom?

   [ ] Yes  [ ] No


This is a bit more cumbersome, but I think it is less loaded.

> I'll count and report the votes in 5 days from now.

Please do.  Not that I had not done a similar thing already...

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Menu again.

[Nick Roberts]

 > 2) Move Options=>Blinking Cursor to Appearence submenu?
 > 
 >    [ ] Yes  [ ] No

I don't have strong views about what goes in the options menu-bar but how
about toggling the blinking cursor with a  mouse-3 click on the cursor?
As in (mouse-save-then-kill):


    (let ((click-posn (posn-point (event-start click)))
	  ;; Don't let a subsequent kill command append to this one:
	  ;; prevent setting this-command to kill-region.
	  (this-command this-command))
+      (if (eq (point) click-posn) (blink-cursor-mode))

Maybe its a bit too radical and possibly might seem unhelpful but I don't
think I would click mouse-3 on the cursor accidently.


Nick

Re: Menu again.

[David Kastrup]

Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz> writes:

>  > 2) Move Options=>Blinking Cursor to Appearence submenu?
>  > 
>  >    [ ] Yes  [ ] No
>
> I don't have strong views about what goes in the options menu-bar but how
> about toggling the blinking cursor with a  mouse-3 click on the cursor?
> As in (mouse-save-then-kill):
>
>
>     (let ((click-posn (posn-point (event-start click)))
> 	  ;; Don't let a subsequent kill command append to this one:
> 	  ;; prevent setting this-command to kill-region.
> 	  (this-command this-command))
> +      (if (eq (point) click-posn) (blink-cursor-mode))
>
> Maybe its a bit too radical and possibly might seem unhelpful but I don't
> think I would click mouse-3 on the cursor accidently.

Uh, that's what one deletes text with.  Anyway, special mouse clicks
are useful for momentary actions, like selecting and deleting text or
opening a popup window.

I think it would be _very_ strange to let them toggle a preference
option (which one usually sets up once and saves), let alone cursor
blinking.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Menu again.

[Luc Teirlinck]

Nick Roberts wrote:

   I don't have strong views about what goes in the options menu-bar but how
   about toggling the blinking cursor with a  mouse-3 click on the cursor?

The idea of adding "Blinking Cursor" to the Menu Bar was to aid
beginning users to whom the menu bar would be part of their first
introduction to Emacs.  They would have to be able to disable the
blinking before being able to, say, comfortably read the detailed
documentation in the tutorial or Info.  mouse-3 would not help them,
because they would need to read the docs before finding out about it.

Moreover, mouse-3 is already taken for other purposes.

Sincerely,

Luc.

Blinking Cursor (was Re: Menu again.)

[Nick Roberts]

> ...mouse-3 would not help them, because they would need to read the docs
> before finding out about it.

No but it might help those who have already read the docs.

 > Moreover, mouse-3 is already taken for other purposes.

Not to give in (too) easily:

    (let ((click-posn (posn-point (event-start click)))
	  ;; Don't let a subsequent kill command append to this one:
	  ;; prevent setting this-command to kill-region.
	  (this-command this-command))
      (if (and (not mark-active)
	       (eq (point) click-posn)) (blink-cursor-mode))

What does it interfere with now?


Nick

Re: Blinking Cursor

[David Kastrup]

Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz> writes:

>> ...mouse-3 would not help them, because they would need to read the docs
>> before finding out about it.
>
> No but it might help those who have already read the docs.

Those will be better served with the command line option or the
configuration variable.

>  > Moreover, mouse-3 is already taken for other purposes.
>
> Not to give in (too) easily:
>
>     (let ((click-posn (posn-point (event-start click)))
> 	  ;; Don't let a subsequent kill command append to this one:
> 	  ;; prevent setting this-command to kill-region.
> 	  (this-command this-command))
>       (if (and (not mark-active)
> 	       (eq (point) click-posn)) (blink-cursor-mode))
>
> What does it interfere with now?

I think this is one of the cases that does not warrant extended
traffic on the list, simply because it has no chance of getting
supported by more than one person.

If anybody except Nick considers clicking on the cursor as an
interface for stopping it from blinking a good idea, please speak up.
Other than that, let us call this case closed.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Blinking Cursor

[Nick Roberts]

 > > What does it interfere with now?
 > 
 > I think this is one of the cases that does not warrant extended
 > traffic on the list, simply because it has no chance of getting
 > supported by more than one person.

I was just brainstorming, perhaps I was worn down by the much more extended
traffic about the Options menu. I don't mind you if you think its a crap idea
but please don't others what to think also.

 > If anybody except Nick considers clicking on the cursor as an
 > interface for stopping it from blinking a good idea, please speak up.
 > Other than that, let us call this case closed.

Yes, thats generally how threads proceed, but without usually without a
master of ceremonies.


Nick

Re: Blinking Cursor (was Re: Menu again.)

[Richard Stallman]

I am not going to change Mouse-3.  Please consider the issue closed

Re: Menu again.

[Luc Teirlinck]

Kim Storm wrote:

   Can we take a poll on this issue and get done with it?

I am _not_ going to participate in this poll.  Decisions were already
made about all three issues raised.

Moreover, the polls would be completely rigged, because they are
proposed just after somebody wrote several long dissertations
defending his viewpoints, while admonishing other people not to
respond in kind.  For balance, I should present my arguments in
similar detail (_especially_ for the third issue, where I never went
in the technical details of all the trouble it would cause).  However,
now is not the time for such arguments.

Sincerely,

Luc.

Re: Menu again.

[Jan D.]

> Please send me your votes on the following questions:
>
> 1) Rename Options=>Show/hide to Options=>Appearence ?
>    [with suitable minor adjustments on the sub-menu]
>
>    [ ] Yes  [x] No
>
>
> 2) Move Options=>Blinking Cursor to Appearence submenu?
>
>    [x] Yes  [ ] No

Since I don't want to rename Show/hide, I assume voting yes here 
implies Blinking Cursor goes to the Show/hide menu.


>
> 3) Fix Options=>Save Options to offer to save unsaved Customize
>    as suggested by David (below)?
>
>    [x] Yes  [ ] No

	Jan D.

Re: Menu again.

[Richard Stallman]

    Can we take a poll on this issue and get done with it?

I am not going to make these decisions by votes.  I already
decided them.

(Sometimes it is useful to conduct a poll of users, but this list
won't reach the users.)

Re: Menu again.

[Kim F. Storm]

Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu> writes:


>> That is why Richard asked to commit it at top level.
>
>>From Richard's message of March 4:
>
>   That is persuasive evidence; I am convinced.  

That "evidence" was clearly hoaxed as I showed in a subsequent mail.

Without that evidence, maybe Richard wouldn't have agreed to adding
the "blinking cursor" to Options in the first place...

>                                                 Since this does not
>   fit in the Show/Hide menu, let's add it at top level.
>
>   Would someone please do that?
>
> This was after you already presented the arguments you just repeated
> once more.

But it was before we added --no-blinking-cursor.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Menu again.

[Richard Stallman]

I made the decision to keep the Hide/Show menu as it is
and put the new option at top level.

I am disappointed that people started arguing about it again.
Please, everyone, stop arguing so much!

Re: Menu again.

[David Kastrup]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> I made the decision to keep the Hide/Show menu as it is
> and put the new option at top level.

That was when we didn't have a command line option to turn off cursor
blinking.

> I am disappointed that people started arguing about it again.

Whatever.  That's why there was a proposal to poll instead of arguing.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Menu again.

[Kim F. Storm]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> I made the decision to keep the Hide/Show menu as it is
>> and put the new option at top level.
>
> That was when we didn't have a command line option to turn off cursor
> blinking.

And because that decision was based on bogus "evidence" resulting from a
completely hoaxed google search for "blinking cursor".

>
>> I am disappointed that people started arguing about it again.
>
> Whatever.  That's why there was a proposal to poll instead of arguing.

Probably because there was no real argument before the decision.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Menu again.

[Richard Stallman]

    I have just had a user complain in a German Usenet group that
    "Options/Truncate Long Lines in this buffer" is not saved when you use
    "Save Options".

    ... it might
    perhaps be prudent to remove this particular option, which is the only
    one that only applies to "this buffer" in the Options menu, as far as
    I can see.

I think it could make sense to put this option into a submenu labeled
"Options for current buffer only".  However, that would look rather
silly if this were the only option in said menu.  Is there any other
per-buffer option we might want to put in it?