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: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 03:24:48 +0900 Message-ID: <87wpytvua7.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <5581C29E.1030101@yandex.ru> <87r3p9fxm2.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k2v0fiji.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20150619090225.GA2743@acm.fritz.box> <87fv5kfrfa.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87a8vrg3m1.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87fv5ixskp.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20150623180720.GA12232@acm.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1435170310 19044 80.91.229.3 (24 Jun 2015 18:25:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 18:25:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 24 20:25:02 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 1Z7pM6-0007Pd-23 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:25:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52369 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7pM5-0002Pu-GG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:25:01 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39974) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7pM1-0002PU-9Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:24:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7pLw-0008Qn-O6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:24:57 -0400 Original-Received: from shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.161]:37091) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7pLw-0008PO-7B; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:24:52 -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 4C3401C3988; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 03:24:49 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1F4631A2CA2; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 03:24:49 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <20150623180720.GA12232@acm.fritz.box> X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta34) "kale" ffb5abc8dc4e 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:187490 Archived-At: Alan Mackenzie writes: > > No, you criticize *me*, writing: > > > What we get from you is ad-hominem attacks, over and over. > > That is criticising what you've been writing. With effort it can be interpreted that way, but you know as well as I do that was an attack on me personally. Criticism of what I wrote would quote the actual attacks, but this merely asserts that I do so. Then, the word "what" implies "ad hominem attacks" constitute the entirety of what I post. > > I changed my mind in this discussion, but venom for those you > > disagree with never changes. > > > That is most definitely ad hominem, and indeed you know it to be > > untrue. > > It is not an ad hominem, Of course it is. "Venom ... never changes" is an implicit assertion that such venom is a personal attribute, especially since he knows it to be untrue. That is ad hominem. You are thinking of phrasing like "is all too frequent", and in fact you used that kind of phrasing yourself. But Richard did not. I'm very surprised that you accuse me below of exploiting "plausible deniability" for using a word which cannot possibly be explained away that way, while you don't recognize the genuine article when it's pointed out to you, and you even defend it. > What you wrote, second time round, was "I don't respect the > ASCII-capped lobby". That is disparaging, and an explicit > expression of disrespect for people whose views differ from your > own. "Spewing contempt at ot her people" is a characterisation of > this sentence, and other things you have written, which has some > merit. Indeed it does. It's not nice, but it's not a matter of mere disagreement on a technical change. It's a moral stance (one which I didn't recognize myself until you forced me to clarify to myself *why* I chose to invent that phrase). Note that the term is precisely calculated to satirize one who argues that *others'* use of non-ASCII characters is an imposition on *him* because he's "unable" to input them, or because his system hasn't been yet configured to enable their input. Asking that others not use certain characters because I would have to learn how to input them, no, I'm sorry, I can't do that and I can't respect even the mention of that rationale. There are, of course, good reasons for maintaining ASCII and English as the primary character set and language of inspiration for programming languages. Backward compatibility, compatibility with existing software (including common platforms, although Eli is on treacherous ground since Windows is avowedly proprietary), pick the most common language and standardize on it, etc. Stick to those and you're not a member of the ASCII-capped. It's also reasonable to point out that for oneself, the system really isn't good enough yet. To advocate that the commit be pushed only if effort is also devoted to improved input methods and display, that is very reasonable. And elsewhere I've discussed approaches to "plain-text input methods" (like the electric quotes mode, but more general) with Eli already. > > I myself am lobbying for experimentation with non-ASCII characters in > > Emacs syntax. I see nothing "contemptuous" in that word, and nothing > > in several online dictionaries suggests that it is offensive. > > Oh, come on, Stephen! You know perfectly well that the offensiveness of > words has everything to do with their context, and I put it to you that > your phrase "the ASCII-capped lobby" was intended to be offensive, but > deniably so. I, for one, find it offensive. You were intended to, this time, as one of those who has used "I don't know how to input curly quotes" as a reason to oppose Paul's change. I never had *any* intent of denying that "ASCII-capped" is offensive, and I'm insulted that you think I'm stupid enough to try denying it. But I put it to *you* that the focus of discussion has been on the word "lobby", which simply means "advocacy group". Don't ask me why, that was not my choice. > > > > When did you change your mind in this discussion, and about what? > > > > Reread my messages and you will see. > > > Why are you evading a simple question, and refusing to share > > information you certainly have? > > I would guess because it would take Richard more time and effort than > it's worth. Something like In my first post I opposed all use of curly quotes in docstrings, but later I decided it would be OK to have an option to display ASCII grave and apostrophe as single quotes if the user wants to. I can't take time to dig up message IDs, sorry, but I think I was replying to Paul Eggert. would be entirely satisfactory. It took me 3 minutes to write, and I had to construct a plausible example so the length would be realistic. I wouldn't be surprised if that example is true -- but it would take me 30 minutes to confirm, I believe. Considered as a peace offering, I think Richard's 3 minutes would be amply repaid by reduction of future acrimony, but he'll have to judge that. > > Rereading would be both tedious and unreliable. Because your posts > > are very short, and with minimal quoting for context (and rarely any > > attribution of quotations), it can be very difficult to establish > > context for your words. > > This is a fair criticism. Thank you. > Now the whole point of this post, if you hadn't guessed, is to get you > to post in a more congenial manner, even when (especially when) you > disagree with whom you're writing to. English is your native language, > and you're as skilled in its use as anybody here. So please stop the ad > hominems, I don't ever use ad hominem argument[1] as far as I know. If you know of examples, please show them to me so I can learn to recognize my mistaken thinking or phrasing that elicits misunderstanding, and correct it. Gratuitous ad hominems, such as the C-word, OK, I'll stop that. I reserve judgment on "ASCII-capped" as long as "MS-DOG" and similar epithets are acceptable and official terminology such as "Win32" is not, as it is a moral issue. I doubt I'll find occasion to use it again soon, though, if that's any comfort. > stop the venom, stop the disrespect and disparagement. That's a reasonable request. Footnotes: [1] Which is the fallacy in which one argues from the character of the advocate to the truth or falsity of the claim.