Re: `looking-back' strange warning

["Andreas Röhler" <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de>]

Am 02.10.2015 um 07:12 schrieb Drew Adams:
>> Making it optional Encourages people to think that looking-at is just
>> like looking-back, with the same performance characteristic,
> Clarifying such things is what doc is for.  (Yes, and even
> sometimes byte-compiler messages.)
>
>> whereas making it mandatory encourages people to put a
>> reasonable limit and hence avoid pathological behavior
>> at the end of large buffers.
> But you have _not_ made it mandatory.  Have you?
>
> And yet you issue a "warning" saying that it is mandatory
> (or whatever "2-3 required" arguments is supposed to mean).
> False alarm.  (Circulez ; il n'y a rien a voir.)
>
> There are many, many "best practices" that are handled
> normally by documenting them, including many, many that
> involve far more serious consequences than a slowdown from
> leaving off a LIMIT argument for `looking-back'.  Really.
>
> Programmers are used to such notes.  And even much more
> important performance (and correctness and completeness)
> guidelines are not blown out of proportion and dressed up
> as phony "warnings".
>
> (This "M'as-tu vu ?!!" is the equivalent of a flashy 1995
> web page with loads of revolving animated GIFs.  Another
> distraction in a sea of distraction.)
>
> Not a big deal in any case, on its own.  But symptomatic
> of a misguided approach to communicating such helpful
> but non-critical info to users.
>
> Sprinkling "**WARNING!!!**" everywhere, for even the
> slightest bits of notable information, dilutes what real
> warnings are about.  It decreases the signal-to-noise
> ratio, and just "encourages" people to ignore such
> messages altogether, which is not helpful and no doubt
> not what was intended.
>

Thanks Drew, that's it.

Stefan, that's bad gouvernants style. What about "respect users freedom" 
and blah?