From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Confused by y-or-n-p Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 13:10:33 +0000 Message-ID: References: <871rf7ippu.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83a6trg6mc.fsf@gnu.org> <87im8f951f.fsf@gnus.org> <83lfdacapo.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Gregory Heytings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24316"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (NEB 394 2020-01-19) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 04 14:12:08 2021 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 1kwPea-00068t-SL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 14:12:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49840 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kwPeZ-0007dS-Ug for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:12:07 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55678) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kwPdQ-0006jy-U2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:10:56 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:56229) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kwPdF-0007Dz-LJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:10:53 -0500 Original-Received: from sdf.org (IDENT:ghe@faeroes.freeshell.org [205.166.94.9]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 104DAaQE011608 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Mon, 4 Jan 2021 13:10:36 GMT Original-Received: (from ghe@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 104DBJfr029525; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 13:11:19 GMT In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=ghe@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:262423 Archived-At: >> I haven't seen a single argument in that thread to remove the current >> behavior. I've only seen an argument that you (and only you AFAICS) >> don't like it. > > I suggest you reread that thread, long though it is, with some care. > There were strong arguments expressed there, for improving the then > current behaviour. > There are arguments to _improve_ the current behavior, that is, to provide other behaviors, and I agree with these arguments. But there are no arguments to _remove_ the current behavior, which should either remain the default or be available by setting a variable. > > Forgive me if I become uncustomarily blunt and personal, but it seems > you are determined to find the worst possible interpretation of > everything, and your replies to so many posts take on an unusually > negative tone. > That was not at all my intention, I'm sorry if you have perceived it as such. > > Would you please try to be more positive in your posts, and try to work > together with people to achieve goals, rather than antagonising them. > Thanks! > I believe that's what I did, I initially pointed you the difference between the use of the echo area and the minibuffer inside isearch, I gave you a number of possible improved behaviors, and I already spend quite some time testing your patch and providing you with feedback. I don't think this can be considered as an "antagonising" behavior. > > I don't really want to get drawn here into detailled discussion which > really belongs on that other thread, but would point out that that > "longstanding behaviour" which you seem so attached to appears to be an > ad hoc unsystematic mess resulting from a lack of systematic attention. > [...] > The old "behaviour" seems to be an ad hoc unsystematic mess, not worthy > even of being called a behaviour. > These are very strong statements. I understand that this is what it seems to you, and I would even say that to a certain extent I agree with you, but again, you don't know whether others rely on what you consider to be a mess in their libraries or configurations. >> But the problem is that I am now, and everybody else is now, in a >> situation where we have to spend a lot of time testing various >> combinations of commands and to describe what doesn't work anymore, >> which inevitably leads to very long and boring mails and discussions. > > How is that a problem? Nobody is forcing you into such discussions. > At the cutting edge of development, there are bound to be new things, > there are bound to be old things let go, and there are bound to be > controversies. That is the very essence of development. People are > grateful for the feedback you give, but nobody is forcing you into doing > anything. > I don't feel forced to do anything. I was only pointing the fact that those who object the removal of a behavior are in a position that their feedback will look like bikeshedding. This would not happen if the old behavior remained available; the discussion would then be more constructive, around the question "what is the best default behavior".