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: Folding emacsclient into emacs Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:04:34 +0200 Message-ID: <86myvrszq5.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <87sl5n5yem.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87fy1nbe4f.fsf@jurta.org> <86myvu2zw1.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <87d4wodiof.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87ir6gtx7w.fsf_-_@olgas.newt.com> <85bqc7hfau.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <86hclzuhyp.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <86abrruhb3.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1189674290 25885 80.91.229.12 (13 Sep 2007 09:04:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:04:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 13 11:04:48 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 1IVkcr-0001qY-II for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:04:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVkcr-0004yK-8A for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:04:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IVkcm-0004wc-M1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:04:36 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IVkcm-0004wN-3B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:04:36 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVkcl-0004wK-U1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:04:35 -0400 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IVkcl-00023r-4U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:04:35 -0400 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (dslnet.212-29-44.ip210.dokom.de [212.29.44.210] (may be forged)) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA32364 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:04:32 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 23900 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2007 09:04:34 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 13 Sep 2007 09:04:34 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 26ADE8F8ED; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:04:34 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu\, 13 Sep 2007 11\:54\:00 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) 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:78759 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Cc: rms@gnu.org, bob@rattlesnake.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> From: David Kastrup >> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:59:28 +0200 >> >> I was talking about the case where the first thing you want to do when >> starting Emacs is to edit a file. All the "preposterously wrong >> arguments" you try attributing to me are your own invention. >> >> Since there is not a lack of opportunity for disagreement on this >> list, it might be more productive if you focused on those things that >> have actually been written. > > I was replying to what you wrote, viz: > >> >> Are you saying that users should be punished if the first thing they >> >> want to do with Emacs is "merely" edit a file? > > If I misunderstood what you meant, perhaps you should write more > clearly and shout on others less vociferously. What about "first thing" did you not understand? Isn't "first thing" just a teensy weensy bit different from "only thing"? And what you wrote in reply was: > But making that point doesn't mean we should use preposterously > wrong arguments such as that Emacs can be restarted whenever we need > to edit a file, or that when there's nothing to edit there's no need > to have Emacs running. Where did I write or even imply that Emacs should be restarted whenever we need to edit a file? Where did I imply that when there is nothing to edit there is not need to have Emacs running? And you complain about me "shouting vociferously" when you put such nonsense into my mouth and chastize me vociferously as putting forward "preposterously wrong arguments" you invented yourself and attributed to me? As I said: there is enough room for disagreement about the things actually being written. No need to invent any of your own for me. -- David Kastrup