From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Philippe Vaucher Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [ELPA] New package: transient Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 21:13:58 +0200 Message-ID: References: <83y2qezlpd.fsf@gnu.org> <83tv12zjx1.fsf@gnu.org> <20200429172739.GB4002@ACM> <20200430115108.GA4287@ACM> <20200430123855.GA1444@tuxteam.de> <20200430185819.GC16852@tuxteam.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006bbb7505a486df3a" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="35375"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Emacs developers To: tomas@tuxteam.de Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 30 21:16:28 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jUEfc-00096G-4o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 21:16:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39340 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUEfb-0004Kg-4w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:16:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45226) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUEdg-0001LM-9Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:14:28 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUEde-0005W2-Ng for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:14:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-lj1-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]:42323) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUEde-0005VS-8W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:14:26 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-lj1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id a21so499617ljb.9 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:14:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OgHmfmx6uZxAdxw5O0FOq8CnkOv7SHsA7j+5vbeVWko=; b=nF33Gs0zA6KnqVcyzu12Fb/mVAPl1CAlamyCItYAYpi5/uSYIkcCMoB768Iq3yePv/ EFyZ8a4tKKLIlOBIHJhjeBq5rqn6UXKLVpf8h3v68/9x7QyvZhVq4Ff3eDAghte9e4R/ vEXY3B0TbEJ6dPe1wnwhWP85ououJ4orBXG3i5oorPlna2DhClnyPMXm9llaI2NgZCE1 zS4elfjiB+aM9KcFXdKdyeGXm+8Vv86u8sbMiAoUCwkWRU0pPxf8Chn/b8ipG6eIlyGn rRYcQ1JoIxeo+bm8t3g8v/SLKDzjXX4meZRayPPNXyQFj8y9QdXMOfamz68VrULb05nB Xo5g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OgHmfmx6uZxAdxw5O0FOq8CnkOv7SHsA7j+5vbeVWko=; b=ggPXR0wE9oKpquYnpCirWTJk3uy4ibJZt6QOmTLeVO8pyr6ZusqTyDWQzluIzm377t C97BL0Sa/7UWQWy3yKS2WuL42H8hai1bERLZnmf2FJiGzlTC7aX+LbPPFzF3kv9FQkSU Q5BQuCfzrPuVbhwJbxUCvSoIhAKinkFsnJDv1iXiO3B0COTswjcCHeNCFtFodxwqSsTV Y0ql0YXSHaXbJol62hUbyrspKk+Da3B2AYmstssMxh/pA8iLsf0PrnYFqDT+1fp17/ZA Z5kFBg0Fbh8Z18pp5NEHaIY67bbjLt68xAEgiNIWHJotourbH9+zTvgOr6/yBvycPgjN oYXA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubPdITfoHyyV3C9lrc6DBRMR5ofbEUnSK3wHsgxDlnkGTRYeU/T TvQUc0CVzv5hQ9Mp1/MloOSYdyoQkSkeM9l2u2KwF+rG X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypI9iazEvV3SdTrSfqGUb2hJE8xHx6qBfUY5NUxeas3BDLJ6zV+BQB0j2wqi4wlSBir4rYU1kN0Z566z9HjV7E4= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:700e:: with SMTP id l14mr219241ljc.135.1588274064504; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:14:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20200430185819.GC16852@tuxteam.de> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::22e; envelope-from=philippe.vaucher@gmail.com; helo=mail-lj1-x22e.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: [-] PROGRAM ABORT : Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). Location : parse_addr6(), p0f-client.c:67 X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4864:20::22e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:248269 Archived-At: --0000000000006bbb7505a486df3a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > That's it. Although my feeling is that your (Alan) reaction was too > > > sharp, I also feel that you, Philippe, disregard the cultural aspects > > > of your proposal [...] > > > I'm amazed that you reach this conclusion based on this story. My main > > argument was "hey, let's add a clearer api where it makes sense, so > things > > are better namespaced". > > I'm sorry that you are amazed. It seems I'm unable to bring across my > point. > Ah, I get it now. You just want to make me understand how people perceive what I say. I agree, it's sad that I appear that way. > > People kept nitpicking about the alist example not being good enough, so > I > > raise other examples where it's more obvious (file*, buffer*, process*, > > window*) but people keep on going back to the alist example, as if it's > > impossible for you to steelman my argument. > > No, not "not good enough". People around here /care/ about the alist > examples, since it's core Lisp terminology. It may be a bit strange, > but it makes programs more readable to people around here. Changing > that is not only a technical question, and if you don't account for > that, strong reactions are to be expected. > > This is the point I think you may be missing. > So you're saying the alist example is so core to Lisp terminology that we can't infer what I'm getting at (because Lisp *is* alist named that way etc) ? Interesting, I didn't consider that indeed. > > Anyway Stefan agreed and proposed something about list. I said good idea > > and we can make alias to the old names (that means KEEP the old names), > and > > EVENTUALLY (in a far future) deprecate the old names, and what you guys > > deduce from this? That I want to rename the existing API right now. > > Right now, eventually -- some care strongly about keeping parts of it. > It's, of course, on them to listen to you -- but it's on you to accept > their position, too. > True. I guess it's because I only see reactance on their part without even considering the idea, and I think I'm able to see where they are talking from so I find it unfair that they don't do the same with my argument. But that's probably a biased view. > > This is strawmaning my position, I believe you wanted me to have this > > position because you felt threatened by change. > > This old saw. "You're just hostile to change". Please don't. I know > that from other discussions of this kind (believe me, I've witnessed > quite a few) and it is... not constructive. > Yes, you're right sorry I was steaming. The fact that Alan Mackenzie never apologized for his ugly behavior left me with a taste of revenge, I'd fix that. > IMHO valid rebuttals to my argument would have been: > > > > - It's too much work. > > - The supposed advantages are not demonstrated. > > - It will create two APIs to maintain (even tho they would only be > aliases > > but still a valid argument). > > > > But certainly not: > > > > - look, some parts of the string library in C does not follow this so > your > > idea is not valid > > - emacs lisp is not namespaced because that is how we filter smarter > people > > - if we start namespaceing one api then we will end up with math.+ > because > > it's impossible to apply your idea in a sane way > > So it's you who fixes what a "valid rebuttal" is? That's not the way > how negotiations work. > I'd have worded better. By "valid" I meant "here's a non-exhaustive list of arguments that appear to reply to the central argument". If you look at my replies I think I always replied to these non-central arguments, but maybe I focused too much on pointing out they were not central and people missed my answer. > > Of course I also strawman your arguments here, but you'd get my point. > > Address the center of the target, not its periphery. > > As defined by whom? Good point, what is central and not is subjective. I guess my belief in trying to steelman the other's position resulted in me calling out those who didn't my position. I'd correct that. Kind regards, Philippe --0000000000006bbb7505a486df3a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > That's it. Although my feeling is that you= r (Alan) reaction was too
> > sharp, I also feel that you, Philippe, disregard the cultural asp= ects
> > of your proposal [...]

> I'm amazed that you reach this conclusion based on this story. My = main
> argument was "hey, let's add a clearer api where it makes sen= se, so things
> are better namespaced".

I'm sorry that you are amazed. It seems I'm unable to bring across = my
point.

Ah, I get it now. You just want = to make me understand how people perceive what I say. I agree, it's sad= that I appear that way.

=C2=A0
> People kept nitpicking about the = alist example not being good enough, so I
> raise other examples where it's more obvious (file*, buffer*, proc= ess*,
> window*) but people keep on going back to the alist example, as if it&= #39;s
> impossible for you to steelman my argument.

No, not "not good enough". People around here /care/ about the al= ist
examples, since it's core Lisp terminology. It may be a bit strange, but it makes programs more readable to people around here. Changing
that is not only a technical question, and if you don't account for
that, strong reactions are to be expected.

This is the point I think you may be missing.

So you're saying the alist=C2=A0example is so core to Lisp termi= nology that we can't infer what I'm getting at (because Lisp *is* a= list named that way etc) ? Interesting, I didn't consider that indeed.<= /div>

=C2=A0
> Anyway Stefan agreed and proposed something about list. I = said good idea
> and we can make alias to the old names (that means KEEP the old names)= , and
> EVENTUALLY (in a far future) deprecate the old names, and what you guy= s
> deduce from this? That I want to rename the existing API right now.
Right now, eventually -- some care strongly about keeping parts of it.
It's, of course, on them to listen to you -- but it's on you to acc= ept
their position, too.

True. I guess it&#= 39;s because I only see reactance on their part without even considering th= e idea, and I think I'm able to see where they are talking from so I fi= nd it unfair that they don't do the same with my argument. But that'= ;s probably a biased view.

=C2=A0
> This is strawmaning my position= , I believe you wanted me to have this
> position because you felt threatened by change.

This old saw. "You're just hostile to change". Please don'= ;t. I know
that from other discussions of this kind (believe me, I've witnessed quite a few) and it is... not constructive.

=
Yes, you're right sorry I was steaming. The fact that Alan Mackenz= ie never apologized for his ugly behavior left me with a taste of revenge, = I'd fix that.


> IMHO valid rebuttals to my argument would = have been:
>
> - It's too much work.
> - The supposed advantages are not demonstrated.
> - It will create two APIs to maintain (even tho they would only be ali= ases
> but still a valid argument).
>
> But certainly not:
>
> - look, some parts of the string library in C does not follow this so = your
> idea is not valid
> - emacs lisp is not namespaced because that is how we filter smarter p= eople
> - if we start namespaceing one api then we will end up with math.+ bec= ause
> it's impossible to apply your idea in a sane way

So it's you who fixes what a "valid rebuttal" is? That's = not the way
how negotiations work.

I'd have wor= ded better. By "valid" I meant "here's a non-exhaustive = list of arguments that appear to reply to the central argument". If yo= u look at my replies I think I always replied to these non-central argument= s, but maybe I focused too much on pointing out they were not central and p= eople missed my answer.

=C2=A0
> Of course I also strawman your arg= uments here, but you'd get my point.
> Address the center of the target, not its periphery.

As defined by whom?

Good point, what is cen= tral and not is subjective. I guess my belief in trying to steelman the oth= er's position resulted in me calling out those who didn't my positi= on. I'd correct that.

Kind regards,
= Philippe
--0000000000006bbb7505a486df3a--