From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Scratch buffer annoyance Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:09:25 +0200 Message-ID: <853az3t9d6.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1185991829 11927 80.91.229.12 (1 Aug 2007 18:10:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:10:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 01 20:10:22 2007 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 1IGIeL-0004Qz-Fq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:10:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGIeK-0000Rg-N3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:10:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IGIeH-0000RZ-Gh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:10:17 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IGIeF-0000R5-Mt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:10:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGIeF-0000Qz-Fm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:10:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-07.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.47]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IGIeF-0002Xm-0E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:10:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-11-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-11-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.28]) by mail-in-07.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3893D24B571; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:10:13 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail-in-05.arcor-online.net (mail-in-05.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.45]) by mail-in-11-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22BE8347403; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:10:13 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-017-017.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.17.17]) by mail-in-05.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89E7B2BAA21; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:10:12 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 011B81C3E076; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:09:25 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Wed\, 1 Aug 2007 10\:05\:55 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.1/3846/Wed Aug 1 09:27:07 2007 on mail-in-05.arcor-online.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:75924 Archived-At: "Drew Adams" writes: > I wouldn't strongly argue You argue against anything not designed by yourself until everybody is exhausted, so the strength is irrelevant. > against having a value that is evaled, but I don't really see that > as needed. And users, especially newbies, might get into more > trouble if we do that. Newbies are to use customize, and thus can't get into trouble. > I don't think it would be "easier to customize" - I think the > opposite. A user would need to provide both the destination string > and the action function to apply to it. That could be confusing - > for little or no gain (for the user). > > Why not just make sure that the value is a literal string of the > right kind, Drew, get a grip. A string is of kind string, period. There is no "right" or "wrong" kind. That is precisely the problem. > and provide only for `dired', `find-file', and `switch-to-buffer' as > the actions? Well, have you actually taken a look at the code? That is exactly what the customization type provided. > Is there a real need to go beyond that to evaluation and arbitrary > actions? > > If there is a _user_ need (benefit) for an evaled expression, then > let's hear it, but if this proposal is just because we seem to be > having difficulty finding a good way to implement file, directory, > and buffer values, then that's wrong. Let's not burden the user if > we can avoid it. There is no burden whatsoever for the user involved. He gets the right customization choices, and nothing else. A fuzzy "Please try figuring out what I mean by it" string of "the right kind" where the user has no chance to figure out what action will result (since not even Emacs has a chance to figure out without trying) is _not_ _at_ _all_ helpful for the user. So please stop pretending that there are no valid objections and you already have addressed them by handwaving. It is likely possible to use a funcall here instead of an eval, but the customized forms will be quite the same, and there are no savings of confusion involved. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum