From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: RE: Issues with emacs Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 09:07:57 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87bokbb4zw.fsf@gnu.org><4FE6E8A1.5060107@gmail.com><61A0BF66CAD94FF8AC3DE69FEA31BCB2@us.oracle.com> <4FE7353F.1000603@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1340554131 10738 80.91.229.3 (24 Jun 2012 16:08:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:08:51 +0000 (UTC) To: "'Rainer M Krug'" , Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 24 18:08:49 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1SipMj-00009z-5K for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:08:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40430 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SipMi-0006IN-Sw for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:08:44 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60021) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SipMd-0006IC-WB for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:08:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SipMb-0006jS-Bu for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:08:39 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]:19619) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SipMb-0006j9-4o for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:08:37 -0400 Original-Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id q5OG8Xcs005262 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:08:33 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q5OG8WIr020927 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:08:32 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt101.oracle.com (abhmt101.oracle.com [141.146.116.53]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q5OG8W5a025516; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:08:32 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 09:08:31 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <4FE7353F.1000603@gmail.com> Thread-Index: Ac1SH+5aQr7Lf+FVSni1GM2weSlHuQAAB/IA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 141.146.126.227 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:85430 Archived-At: > > Improving the use of menus and improving doc/help access is > > approachable by nearly anyone. Menu implementation is a bit > > complicated, and so are keymaps. But once past the initial > > hurdle it is not hard to make a concrete implementation > > improvement/proposal. Whether a particular proposal gets > > adopted is another story. But your chances are much higher > > with code than with abstract expectations or whining about > > "modern" and "nowadays" this or that. > > Ups - I just hope that this refers to me: I definitely did > not "whine that emacs is not modern enough", nor did I want to > complain tat emacs is not "modern" enough for "nowadays" computer > users. No, Rainer, not at all. I was not referring to anything said by anyone in this thread. I was speaking generally, based on lots of threads and other discussions over the years. And let me be clearer: There is _nothing wrong with complaining_, whether or not someone has a positive suggestion or, better, a proposed code change - as long as readers are respected as people and not insulted or attacked personally, obviously. The closer feedback is to a concrete suggestion, code patch, or reasoned technical argument, the more useful it is likely to be. That's all. No one, including me, should discourage feedback that does not necessarily make a concrete proposal. Complaints, no matter how expressed or how vague, have their place and can be constructive in the end - and no matter how they might be received. The point is not for anyone to avoid complaining. It is just to suggest that if you _can_ be concrete, give reasons, and maybe even suggest code changes, then the chances of consideration generally improve. Just advice/suggestion. And as I tried to make clear, even a well reasoned, concrete proposal based on a good idea and with a clean code patch is far from a guarantee of acceptance. Just because you express your idea well and you are convinced that it represents an improvement, that does not mean that others will see things the same way. ;-) Don't take such rejection personally, and don't let it dissuade you from continuing to try to improve things. Those who decide have been wrong about many things over the years. And they have also been right about many things. If they are wrong about about a suggestion you make, so be it.