From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ken Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete] Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:02:15 -0400 Message-ID: <4E8B6647.4060008@mousecar.com> References: <87litcvtu2.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <20111003093334.0bf5d988@kuru.homelinux.net> <4E89B613.9060305@mousecar.com> <4E8AFFBA.1000808@mousecar.com> Reply-To: gebser@mousecar.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1317758557 13458 80.91.229.12 (4 Oct 2011 20:02:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 20:02:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, emacs-delete-poll@gnu.org To: Jeremiah Dodds Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 04 22:02:32 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBBCB-0004vZ-LP for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:02:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51872 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBBCB-000416-1b for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:02:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58909) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBBC6-000410-D5 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:02:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBBC5-0006eu-AC for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:02:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.194]:56502) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBBC3-0006eT-CS; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:02:23 -0400 Original-Received: from dellap.mousecar.net (dsl093-011-016.cle1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.11.16]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LnQ3S-1QetBE0Ynu-00hxgB; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:02:21 -0400 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20110928) In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:U3eNwqSEobkkyPQu1do66dvqR9R8u4LtAhISiQLTyFb WbFDU3j63HjVrGIQAjPJgzF12Y/ist4sGZkwIshsLb10RT+DDE z/A21cfUCp0zcy4lAzOQ0Gd58F91v4jsCl9vq6ivlYAXd/5VqE 8dZsuIm5hVJdPbHYYhG+TnKQmRw35OYhZUat3rqvkzxjueDsBZ Wtjhbl53DTv8yqPjtBNeq+cvxAytsomKD4XJBd16JEJLo0YPeB 3QrtPnFr+2UZxu8CfA3h/LNSAGKuVSttsfECW4XZ/PtMxtAmnD xy8tX4iJkj80e/6WQd1qo3CSJvT6G785NvWFRV02TxevBkRZSK CCjgU0nIv6REbNecUDsNrMjaoaDcWyQO6iCpezlSz X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 74.208.4.194 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:82463 Archived-At: On 10/04/2011 02:40 PM Jeremiah Dodds wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:44 AM, ken wrote: >> Jeremiah, >> >> To be considered a *hidden* assumption (which is what you really meant to >> say) to a proposition, it must logically necessary for that proposition. >> What you're calling "assumptions" below are not. >> >> > > Luckily we are not using a language where words only have one meaning, > nor are we in a discussion where all the definitions of words are > meant to have the definition used in logic. Dismissing logic, are we? I suspect this is the reason for the S/N here approaching zero. > > Since you seem to be either trying to dismiss arguments by finding > flaws unrelated to the main points of the arguments, or actually > missing the main points of the arguments by being distracted or > something, here are my main issues with the post you made earlier in a > condensed form: Very ironic that you should say that. Please read on. > > 1. You are making it sound like the sole reason for people wanting > the change is so that emacs will act like other editors. I not only was making it sound like that, that's exactly what I was saying. And it was *all* that I was saying. I said this because, in fact, two people posted in favor of the changes and for no other reason than the proposed changes complied with how 'modern editors' worked. Please re-read my original post and you'll see I already said this. > Even if this > is the case, analysis of the change should not stop there, what should > be looked at (if possible) is whether or not there's a good reason why > many other editors have the proposed behavior. If there is, then the > argument about changing "just" to emulate other editors doesn't hold > well. Again, if you reread my original post, you'll find you're now arguing against something which you're imagining that I said. > > 2. The argument about wanting to avoid changes because they are > "appeals to fashion" can be applied to wanting to make the change with > just as much weight. Keeping the behavior just because "that's the way > it is" is just as much of an "appeal to fashion", it's just appealing > to the fashion current in Emacs. Not at all. You're obviously not aware of the quite important principle of UI development which counsels against throwing surprises at users. > > The same flaw that is present in the whole of your argument is present > in that second point -- the arguments *for* keeping the behavior are > *not* as simple as "well that's just the way it is". The arguments > *against* keeping the behavior are also not just "but Mom, everyone is > wearing them!". Again, re-read my original post. Don't try to put words or arguments in it that aren't there. I didn't write what you quote above, nor did I even imply that. So the "flaw" you're talking about is only in statements coming out of your imagination.