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: Upcoming loss of usability of Emacs source files and Emacs. Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:06:57 +0900 Message-ID: <87k2v0fiji.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <20150615142237.GA3517@acm.fritz.box> <87y4jkhqh5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <557F3C22.4060909@cs.ucla.edu> <5580D356.4050708@cs.ucla.edu> <87si9qonxb.fsf@gnu.org> <5581C29E.1030101@yandex.ru> <87r3p9fxm2.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1434686848 27634 80.91.229.3 (19 Jun 2015 04:07:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 04:07:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 19 06:07:19 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5naI-0003TG-9F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 06:07:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55737 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5naH-0000Hl-Gy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:07:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54430) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5na5-0000FN-Mz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:07:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5na0-0007dy-Eb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:07:05 -0400 Original-Received: from shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.161]:45714) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5na0-0007db-53; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:07:00 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D3E11C393C; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:06:57 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2827C1A2CA2; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:06:57 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta34) "kale" 83e5c3cd6be6 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 130.158.97.161 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:187303 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > Your arguments are heated but not coherent. You might try to refute them, rather than descending to mere name- calling. Especially in a post where you immediately accuse someone else of name-calling: > Denigrating a significant class of users with the term "lobby" does > not make them less important or less worthy of respect. No, the term "lobby" does not make anybody worthy of less respect. A lobby is simply a group of people with a common interest, who advocate that interest to decision-makers. Given that lobbying is one of your most important activities, I don't see why you would associate it with "denigration". And I've already granted that the costs to those who *can* live with just ASCII, and *don't* need input methods yet, matter. I think they're low enough to be worth paying, just as you think the sacrifice of Japanese OCR is a cost that *I* should pay. Such conflicts can't be waved away, and each side will lobby for its own interest. > The situation is simple: using curly quotes in doc strings would be > a substantial inconvenience for many users _for no practical > benefit_. And now you reveal *your* prejudice. That's no help. Paul claims practical benefit; I agree -- and even Stefan seems to see at least a possibility of practical benefit. But both sides are just speculating about what most users will feel. For reasons I've explained elsewhere, I believe only an experiment can help determine more accurately what the mass of users will think.