Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[ken <gebser@mousecar.com>]

On 10/04/2011 02:40 PM Jeremiah Dodds wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:44 AM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> 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.
>>  What 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.

Dismissing logic, are we?  I suspect this is the reason for the S/N here 
approaching zero.


> 
> 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:

Very ironic that you should say that.  Please read on.


> 
>   1.  You are making it sound like the sole reason for people wanting
> the change is so that emacs will act like other editors. 

I not only was making it sound like that, that's exactly what I was 
saying.  And it was *all* that I was saying.  I said this because, in 
fact, two people posted in favor of the changes and for no other reason 
than the proposed changes complied with how 'modern editors' worked. 
Please re-read my original post and you'll see I already said this.


> 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.

Again, if you reread my original post, you'll find you're now arguing 
against something which you're imagining that I said.


> 
>   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.

Not at all.  You're obviously not aware of the quite important principle 
of UI development which counsels against throwing surprises at users.


> 
> 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!".

Again, re-read my original post.  Don't try to put words or arguments in 
it that aren't there.  I didn't write what you quote above, nor did I 
even imply that.  So the "flaw" you're talking about is only in 
statements coming out of your imagination.