From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:10:30 +0900 Message-ID: <87ipqpquex.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87mxgem09k.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4E2A7EBD.7050300@gmx.at> <87livooqt6.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4E2B158B.1080101@gmx.at> <87wrf8iyse.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4E2BEED2.5040608@gmx.at> <8739hvu6lh.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4E2C50E6.3020103@gmx.at> <878vrnweju.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4E2D34D7.4040002@gmx.at> <87mxg2fw74.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <87pqkxrgdx.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87livl8vms.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1311671442 17836 80.91.229.12 (26 Jul 2011 09:10:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:10:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 26 11:10:38 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qldew-0006oQ-8H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:10:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34915 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qldev-0001Jb-DF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 05:10:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58108) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qldes-0001Im-Sl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 05:10:35 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qlder-0006gm-Q1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 05:10:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:44031) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qldep-0006ft-KS; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 05:10:32 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96833FA071C; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:10:23 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 069591A26F8; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:10:31 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <87livl8vms.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-Mailer: VM 8.1.93a under 21.5 (beta31) "ginger" cd1f8c4e81cd XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.158.97.223 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:142307 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > One aim of the GNU project is empowering users. An interface that > requires relying on highly competent special users and/or extensive > experimentation (which often leads to results relying on undefined > artifacts of the current behavior) is not conducive in that regard. That criticism applies to all of Emacs in greater or lesser degree, mostly greater IMHO. But that's not important. My main claim is that the important question is not "is the interface complex?" Rather it is, "is the power available with a simpler interface?" If the answer is "no" (and I believe that is true for the problems addressed by XEmacs specifiers -- a generalization of "defface" as Juri points out -- and by Martin's specifiers), then the question becomes, "shall we have a complex interface that empowers some users more than others, or shall we have a procrustean interface that ensures all users have equal and low capability?" Emacs obviously has to go for the former; we'll never be able to equal "Notepad" in the latter. ;-) > If you look closely, you'll find a high correlation between "David > is ranting again" and "this won't work without additional > resources". Yeah, well, GNU Emacs won't run on an 8086, either, you need additional resources. That's not to say that your ranting isn't a service to the community; it certainly is. But you shouldn't stand in the way of necessary complexity (unless you can show it isn't really necessary!) > Just a few days ago the CEDET guys had to suffer that. Different case, IIUC. AIUI the resource CEDET is missing is a central piece of "the preferred form for making changes to the software." I find it incomprehensible that CEDET was permitted to be installed in Emacs in that state (or perhaps I misunderstand the issue), but it's not my problem. > > Specifiers are one thing that nobody in the SXEmacs fork has suggested > > getting rid of, by the way. > > You can only get rid of things you understand. The SXEmacs developers understand fine, as do many XEmacs users. Your situation is different; you aren't an XEmacs user except to the extent that you support a few XEmacs users who also happen to use AUCTeX. You had every right to complain, although it was less than gracious of you to refuse to review the rewrite of the documents you complained so vociferously about.