Re: bug in server-start

[Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>]

"Juanma Barranquero" <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

  > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 20:28, Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu> wrote:
  > 
  > > Then PLEASE STOP making statements about what I said when that is
  > > clearly not true.
  > 
  > Then PLEASE STOP trying to turn this discussion into another confrontation.

You gotta be kidding.

  > > (display-warning 'server (format "Server %S is already running" server-name))
  > >
  > > Given that the 23.1 behavior is different than what happened before,
  > > this will not help users easily find out what is wrong.
  > 
  > What will help the users find out what is wrong? Not giving them a warning?

How about an error message that is more explicit?

  > > PLEASE STOP making statements here about what I do or do not, when you
  > > have no information to support your suppositions.  Thank you.
  > 
  > PLEASE STOP using that tone, and PLEASE LOOK for "perhaps" in a dictionary.

You might want to reread what I wrote.  Making suppositions about what
someone does or does not do does not help your argument, STOP THAT.

  > > There's a strong hint in the fact that server-name is a defvar with no
  > > docstring (not a defcustom).
  > 
  > Nonsense. The manual clearly says that you can run several servers
  > provided that you use different names, and before --daemon (and even
  > now, on Windows) there's no user command to set the server-name. If
  > anything, perhaps it should be a defcustom, or at the very least have
  > a docstring.
  > 
  > > I designed --daemon to be very easy to use, I want the error messages to
  > > be easy to understand/debug too.
  > 
  > And the difference between
  > 
  >    Could not start daemon
  > 
  > and
  > 
  >   Could not start daemon "server"
  > 
  > (or, 'Could not start daemon named "server"')
  > 
  > makes the error messages difficult to understand/debug? How so?

What makes you think that it's just a binary choice here?