From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jeremiah Dodds Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete] Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:19:03 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87litcvtu2.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <20111003093334.0bf5d988@kuru.homelinux.net> <4E89B613.9060305@mousecar.com> <4E8AFFBA.1000808@mousecar.com> <4E8B6647.4060008@mousecar.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1317759558 20649 80.91.229.12 (4 Oct 2011 20:19:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 20:19:18 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, emacs-delete-poll@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 04 22:19:14 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 1RBBSL-0003Uo-Un for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:19:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60701 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBBSL-0007tY-8z for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:19:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:34166) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBBSF-0007tI-Or for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:19:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBBSE-0000aA-OG for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:19:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ey0-f169.google.com ([209.85.215.169]:33005) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBBSC-0000Zp-KW; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:19:04 -0400 Original-Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so1037035eye.0 for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:19:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=K1wEYvJRalDSzG5s57izfh2r5AzH95wo0QgE3acd9IA=; b=fGJFdblviUElSud9PjaVmdaI7gncPKexpqab3mdDCeDoMJyvHAUj8lka4vN5oUJj1H ZteCI7erHf+R/ojjUfetvW7gXZCGKGgkfx9SJhIAeeKutjQnHhv9qQ9GflnZ18rN6xRy +COAmOyirWHs2e6Bd268iNvxMPsJqsGsrQffM= Original-Received: by 10.223.8.2 with SMTP id f2mr2328880faf.23.1317759543392; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.223.14.6 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:19:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E8B6647.4060008@mousecar.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.215.169 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:82465 Archived-At: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM, ken wrote: > On 10/04/2011 02:40 PM Jeremiah Dodds wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:44 AM, ken wrote: > > > Dismissing logic, are we? =A0I suspect this is the reason for the S/N her= e > approaching zero. > No, I was not dismissing logic. I was clarifying that the intended meaning of the work "assumption" in my post was not the same meaning as the word has when discussing formal logic. > I not only was making it sound like that, that's exactly what I was sayin= g. > =A0And it was *all* that I was saying. =A0I said this because, in fact, t= wo > people posted in favor of the changes and for no other reason than the > proposed changes complied with how 'modern editors' worked. Please re-rea= d > my original post and you'll see I already said this. What other people seem to understand is that when those other people proposed that the changes be made because other editors have that behavior, there was most likely an unstated assumption that the other editors did so for a reason and that the suggestion was not merely one of wanting to be part of the cool kids club. Even if those particular people *were* just wanting to feel like they were using an editor that "belonged", it would still be worth considering the change *because* of the likelihood of there being a reason other than being fashionable. >> =A02. =A0The 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. =A0You're obviously not aware of the quite important principl= e of > UI development which counsels against throwing surprises at users. > That's a hefty assumption. If that was the only "quite important" UI principle, this discussion would never happen. Furthermore, I wouldn't suggest just surprising current users with the behavior. There's a reason we have changelogs and help documents and announcement lists and so on -- if it's decided that it's worth making a change despite the possibility of it being surprising to current users, steps can be taken to minimize the number of users that *are* surprised. Also, that principle also applies to trying not to surprise *new* users, which the behavior does for some. >> 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. =A0Don't try to put words or arguments i= n it > that aren't there. =A0I didn't write what you quote above, nor did I even > imply that. =A0So the "flaw" you're talking about is only in statements c= oming > out of your imagination. But you did state that the arguments for changing the behavior were stated as being only because other editors had the behavior. You're correct that they were *stated* that way, however that doesn't mean that that's as far as the motivation for the change being something worth considering goes, and it's not the spot to argue against making the change from.