bug#5122: Mismatched parentheses when dealing with hugebuffercontent

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > Eli is right.
> >
> > It is plain poor judgment to leave things the way they are 
> > in this case.
> 
> If you can't learn to disagree without being disagreeable, 
> few will have the incentive to wade through your "War And
> Peace By Leo Tolstoy"-style emails (certainly not me).

I'm sorry you feel that way.

But there is nothing in the statement I made that is disagreeable or personal -
certainly nothing like that was intended. We are making a judgment (design
decision). Leaving things the way they are now would, IMHO, be a poor choice.

The proposal to do that was from you, yes, but that's not my fault. It is your
proposal I oppose, not you. If you insist on taking my statement personally I
cannot stop you, but that is not productive and that was not my intention. I'm
sorry if it came across that way to you.

I think the _idea_ you promoted is a poor one - and I gave concrete reasons why.
No one is immune from making bad proposals (certainly not me). I did not say
anything about _you_; it is the design you defended that I opposed, and in
specific terms.

I am not responsible for _who_ might choose to defend the status quo design
here. My argument is that we should change it. I would make exactly the same
arguments against it, no matter who defended it. I'm not interested in attacking
anyone; I'm interested in an exchange of ideas that improves Emacs for users.

So don't take it personally - try examining the _arguments_. You will find them,
as well as concrete solution suggestions, in the emails you say you don't want
to read.

Instead of singling out an intro statement where I said that keeping the status
quo is a bad idea, try moving on to read what I said about _why_ and what to do
about it. Put that statement in context.

My mail said essentially "this is a bad idea because...", and all you chose to
read, apparently, was "this is a bad idea". Was it because it was your idea that
you didn't care to read past that? If so, that's not a very good reason.

I've written several mails now in this thread. Judge their technical content -
and their tone - as a whole. I stand by what I wrote - feel free to counter any
part of it technically - that's how we advance. Forget about who wrote what, and
just address the ideas themselves.

I'm willing to address your arguments. You ignore mine, ostensibly because of my
writing style. That sounds like a convenient excuse not to confront the
arguments. It seems it is you who is attacking the messenger, not I.

I believe you mischaracterize my contribution here, painting it as essentially
unproductive ranting to be ignored. That might be convenient if you don't have
counter arguments, but it is not accurate, or fair, or productive.