From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Deprecate _emacs on Windows Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:58:23 -0700 Message-ID: <655D5DBB48F04F719130122440CDA29B@us.oracle.com> References: <0B6A6EC5FD8F46D697F914FB2F6D4304@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1300841927 25057 80.91.229.12 (23 Mar 2011 00:58:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:58:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Lennart Borgman' , 'Stefan Monnier' , 'Emacs developers' To: "'Juanma Barranquero'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 23 01:58:42 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2CPK-0000cv-42 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 01:58:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51875 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q2CPJ-0006NG-Lt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:58:41 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41895 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q2CPC-0006G2-5T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:58:35 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2CPA-0002bO-P2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:58:33 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:35295) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2CPA-0002bB-Dw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:58:32 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet13.oracle.com (rcsinet13.oracle.com [148.87.113.125]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p2N0wTsG016793 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:58:30 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by rcsinet13.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p2N0wSg6013186 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:58:28 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt019.oracle.com (abhmt019.oracle.com [141.146.116.28]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p2N0wRpd007063; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:58:27 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.58.141) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:58:27 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acvo8P3qoiCUe1wUSCmEjjAutFE1LQAAEhxg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 X-Source-IP: acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090207.4D8945B4.010F,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 148.87.113.121 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:137547 Archived-At: > And, why are you not pissed off by "emacs --unibyte", for example? I haven't seen it, and I don't know anything about it. If I got such a = warning each time I fired up Emacs, and if it in fact warned about no danger at = all (dunno whether it does), then I'd no doubt respond similarly about that. My point is simply that we should warn only about impending danger. = Deprecation is not such a case (in general). > > Why should they have to? >=20 > Why should they not? By your reasoning, we should deprecate things, > but *never* remove them, What makes you say that? If we deprecate something then of course we = should remove it at some point. Users should not have to deactivate the = warning message - they should never see it in the first place; it makes no = sense. My objection here is to the warning, not to the deprecation or to the = removal of support for the feature. (I also object to this particular deprecation, but that is a different = issue. And if this feature is to be deprecated then of course I am in favor of = its later being desupported - that's the point of deprecation.) > because, why should we force users to change anything? How do you justify that generalization? I objected to _warning_ users = simply because you are deprecating `_emacs'. You don't seem to get it. > Well, if they are really that interested in keeping _emacs, > they can stay with Emacs 23. Again, off-topic. My complaint here is about the warning. > > Why issue a _warning_ for this? =A0As long as a user's=20 > > `_emacs' is found and used (traditional behavior) there > > is nothing to warn about. >=20 > We're warning them that in a not-so-distant future they will find > their _emacs no longer working. That's not something to warn about. There is no danger. Inform them, = yes, good. Put a deprecation notice in the manual where we talk about = `_emacs'. That's typically how deprecation is done. A user should not see warning messages about things that are being = deprecated - unless one of the deprecations leads to some danger. > > And if a user's `_emacs' is no longer sought and found > > (i.e. ignored, in the future) then the warning > > obviously does no good. >=20 > I fail to understand your reasoning here, sorry. When (after desupport) Emacs no longer looks for `_emacs', it will not = be found. Emacs will then no longer issue the warning, presumably. (Or will you scour the user's hard drive for a `_emacs' file just so you = can warn about it not having been used?) > > Since when does the mere act of deprecation call for a=20 > > _warning_? =A0A warning is in order only if a particular > > deprecation means there is some danger to warn about. >=20 > You have already lectured us on your interpretation for the word > "warning". I still disagree. Google "warning". Enjoy. Hey, but the way things are going, at some point you might well be = right: "warning" will not mean anything more than "informing". We're not there = yet, thank goodness. > Are you really unable to talk about these matters without > being patronizing? ad hominem, ad hominem. Sticks and stones... It's not about you, Juanma - and it's not about me. It's about the pseudo-warning message, regardless of who is behind that initiative. The message is not warning about anything. It's simply telling a user = that `_emacs' is deprecated. That's not a warning. There is no danger. We don't need to tell users this at Emacs startup - it's not a big deal = that `_emacs' is being deprecated. Users are often frightened by = "**WARNING**" - and that's part of its effect. But there is no call for frightening users = here.