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 13:40:29 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87litcvtu2.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <20111003093334.0bf5d988@kuru.homelinux.net> <4E89B613.9060305@mousecar.com> <4E8AFFBA.1000808@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 1317753647 11424 80.91.229.12 (4 Oct 2011 18:40:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 18:40:47 +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 20:40:43 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 1RB9v1-0005mS-02 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:40:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43640 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RB9v0-0004iA-GW for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:40:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59884) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RB9uw-0004i5-3w for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:40:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RB9ur-0002IU-Uv for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:40:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-gy0-f169.google.com ([209.85.160.169]:44563) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RB9uq-0002Hv-0P; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:40:32 -0400 Original-Received: by gya6 with SMTP id 6so950764gya.0 for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 11:40:30 -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=eZAxJihKZcu+APlj+LQNKdDuKqUePolGZU6IDsmsoko=; b=VZfOk0jb93pZyAnZptsSAT97nRMYIspNpHVdAVlaIvfJ6bqFAFR1MI/7wWV/M9Fg/c VhfW9PSK9wNVJVtMPWOSU9KM6yiWWIlr9FP2MC31SlhezXB5mzr1sZoxLh50pfb4wYu6 8rxcMZ2mzgD5x6Y8HMOldhFGtGgwQuFFxr1M8= Original-Received: by 10.223.28.72 with SMTP id l8mr2102002fac.137.1317753629441; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 11:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.223.14.6 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 11:40:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E8AFFBA.1000808@mousecar.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.160.169 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:82461 Archived-At: 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. > =A0What 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. 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: 1. You are making it sound like the sole reason for people wanting the change is so that emacs will act like other editors. 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. 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. 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!".