From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: please make line-move-visual nil Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 00:28:12 +0300 Message-ID: <83ljokswib.fsf@gnu.org> References: <23521879.post@talk.nabble.com> <7b501d5c0905131659r1d79ec56s5a59f76e4713edf9@mail.gmail.com> <23532135.post@talk.nabble.com> <87tz3odq3l.fsf@iki.fi> <23538683.post@talk.nabble.com> <87eiuru24b.fsf@iki.fi> <39370.130.55.118.19.1242397867.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> <48914.130.55.118.19.1242592120.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> <66C6BA04EBCF4B6DAED69E851627D852@us.oracle.com> <87eiue83i7.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <87my92dmdt.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <87eiudewtq.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <831vqdubqy.fsf@gnu.org> <32DB30B2393C495A8763CFCDEF4A8E3D@us.oracle.com> <83vdnosyg4.fsf@gnu.org> <5ED336AF57EB46B69AFB039907C5C5A0@us.oracle.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1243286919 9336 80.91.229.12 (25 May 2009 21:28:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 21:28:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: stephen@xemacs.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 25 23:28:32 2009 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 4.50) id 1M8hie-0005h7-ET for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 May 2009 23:28:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59894 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M8hid-0003xy-J7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 May 2009 17:28:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M8hiZ-0003xd-3K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2009 17:28:23 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M8hiY-0003xK-CV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2009 17:28:22 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=50756 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M8hiY-0003xH-9E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2009 17:28:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:28623) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M8hiX-0001nb-R6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2009 17:28:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout3.012.net.il ([84.95.2.7]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M8hiX-00009w-6e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2009 17:28:21 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout3.012.net.il by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KK700L00Y9Q0900@i_mtaout3.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 May 2009 00:28:19 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.115.215]) by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KK70046WYB05L30@i_mtaout3.012.net.il>; Tue, 26 May 2009 00:28:19 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <5ED336AF57EB46B69AFB039907C5C5A0@us.oracle.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-Detected-Operating-System: by mx20.gnu.org: Solaris 9.1 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:111092 Archived-At: > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: , > Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 14:06:18 -0700 > > > If you come too late in the pretest, yes. > > Too late in which pretest? Any pretest. Your question was general, so I gave a general answer. It started with an "if". Whether _now_ it's "too late" is not my call. > My guess is that you would have said the same thing for the first > pretest, months ago. So now you are inventing what I would have said, and then argue with your own inventions? Is that reasonable? or fair? > Using "it's not critical" as the only reason to introduce a bad choice is lame. That choice was already made, and the reasons back then were certainly not that it's not critical. We are now arguing about unmaking it, and it's in that context that I question the justification for such a reversal.