RE: set font size with ctrl-mouse wheel?

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

> > 1. Just because Emacs has one way to do something is not a 
> > reason it shouldn't also have other ways to do it. If you
> > applied that logic, you could remove everything except
> > `M-:' or `C-x C-e'.
> 
> Firstly, just because Microsoft has something standard in their
> applications, it should be added to Emacs?

Did someone say that? Does that follow from #1?

It was _your_ argument that because Emacs already has one way (C-=) to zoom
there is no need for another way (C-wheel). That argument has no relation to
Microsoft.

> There might be a lot of
> windows users but only a very small proportion use Emacs.

So what? How is that relevant? And do you want to keep it that way?

Is it because Microsoft apps often use C-wheel to zoom that that is a bad thing
to do?

Is it because that UI practice is too common or because it's too uncommon that
it's a bad idea? Please decide.

> The point is: C-x C-= is comparable to C-Mouse4/5 and it 
> gives the user a more precise control.

Nonsense. For one thing, one uses the keyboard; the other uses the mouse. For
another thing, mouse4/5 work differently in Emacs on different platforms. For a
third thing, mouse4/5 sometimes control - you guessed it - the wheel (perhaps
they shouldn't, but they do). For a fourth thing, there is no less control using
a wheel than a mouse button.

> > 2. It's not clear at all that `C-=' etc. are more standard than
> >    C-wheel. But even if they were, see point #1.
> > 3. There is nothing uncommon or clumsy about C-wheel. (a) It is very
> >    common. (b) You haven't shown that it is "clumsy".
> 
> Point 2 and 3 just show how little you have spent outside Microsoft
> products.

Uh, surely we need not descend to comparing how far we can each piss, Leo? I'll
bet you weren't even born when I started programming and using non-Microsoft
software. Your father might not even have been born yet! ;-) Unix wasn't born
yet either, for that matter. But such "arguments" are irrelevant, aren't they?
What counts are one's reasons and reasoning.

When logical argument fails, you resort to ad hominem and the too-easy
dread-and-hatred of the Microsoft Boogeyman. That's too bad, but thanks for
making clear the substance behind your "arguments".