From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: EmacsW32 invocation options Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 17:14:30 +0200 Message-ID: <4638AAD6.8070905@gmail.com> References: <59osrdF2m97hgU1@mid.individual.net> <4637A396.9000300@gmail.com> <46383B57.6050508@gmail.com> <463891EE.60804@gmail.com> <4638A23F.9060504@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1178118896 28278 80.91.229.12 (2 May 2007 15:14:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 15:14:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 02 17:14:53 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HjGXX-0002a8-Sn for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 17:14:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjGdx-0001xV-J8 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:21:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HjGdk-0001xH-MN for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:21:12 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HjGdh-0001wD-CX for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:21:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjGdh-0001w9-9y for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:21:09 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HjGXF-0006CQ-FP; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:14:29 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-145-24.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.145.24]:64399 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HjGXD-0003jt-5m; Wed, 02 May 2007 17:14:28 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000737-2, 2007-04-30), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1HjGXD-0003jt-5m. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1HjGXD-0003jt-5m a739a7a779918c079ffe031ac4f022a2 X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:43509 Archived-At: Juanma Barranquero wrote: > On 5/2/07, Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote: > >> I am sorry if I gave the impression that you and others did not take >> part at all. But when I finally gave Emacs client a (logical) structure >> that seemed relevant to me I did not get feedback on that. > > You *did* get feedback. Some of that feedback said: "it is too late". > Some was "I don't agree with your (logical) structure, I think we > should discuss it a little more". Some of it said "the implementation > is confusing". There was also "it's not that big of an issue, and we > don't want to further delay the issue". Some feedback was silence (and > then Warnock's dilemma apply). Some feedback was positive. You seem to > talk of non-positive feedback as "no feedback". It is more that the feedback at that time had to be on a more detailed level to be meaningful, at least for me. >> And I really >> tested different possibilities a lot. > > I *know* you invested a lot of effort. Why should that mean that the > answer reached is optimal, or even good? No, of course not. What I meant was that I perhaps could have added something to your view if you had tried to be more concrete at that time. (I am not sure I remember the details any more.) I understood it as both a lack of time on your side and that you thought a bit different than I did. That is ok, but it is not my responsibility.