From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: National Language Support Functions Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 01:32:55 +0100 Message-ID: References: <458AB581.7090303@student.lu.se> <45957190.9030801@student.lu.se> <45957F23.8040409@gmail.com> <45958D3B.4060207@gmail.com> <45959540.407@gmail.com> <4595AF66.2030602@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1167438797 10680 80.91.229.12 (30 Dec 2006 00:33:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:33:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 30 01:33:16 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H0S9x-0001Pz-Fg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 01:33:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H0S9w-0004kw-W3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:33:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H0S9l-0004if-KZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:33:01 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H0S9h-0004gL-1Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:33:01 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H0S9g-0004gI-VG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:32:56 -0500 Original-Received: from [64.233.182.186] (helo=nf-out-0910.google.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1H0S9g-0003JZ-Iu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:32:56 -0500 Original-Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d4so5840837nfe for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:32:55 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=iPP1Wor8LXQaK+OuazTj3fA0Wt04rb7G3b07sQjWc+9EgYl+wpEE4JZDf4u9qFJfifXT9DjjSGBVwlS54vsH+fU7nBD1mpITq7i3WU/c6Gc9U3ydAEhJYwcsaeNANvqpyiCSIUr+zS3xt0lUIFudqTkjC/DPsjDPHYHJn/voZ2E= Original-Received: by 10.82.153.5 with SMTP id a5mr3181463bue.1167438775696; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:32:55 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.82.147.2 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:32:55 -0800 (PST) Original-To: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" In-Reply-To: <4595AF66.2030602@gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:64466 Archived-At: On 12/30/06, Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote: > I could be more neutral, you are right. But again, some help would be > appreciated. I'm not talking about neutrality, nor asking you to be neutral. I'm countering your argument that your patches are good for new users *because* more people downloads your patched Emacs than the unpatched Emacs you also distribute. > Since MS Windows is > not the main target this makes it problematic to convince people. I don't think it is hard to convince people, for real problems. Perhaps you perceive as problems things that not many people see as such. > I think it just fell off the wayside. If you're so convinced it is a problem, you should push harder IMHO. > What a you trying to say? That the ability to use those keys as meta > should be ruled out because it brakes the Windows UI guidelines? No. I'm saying that IMO your opinion in that regard is wrong: the issue is not uncontroversial. > But steeling Alt is a far worse > thing than steeling the Windows keys. I just happen to disagree. Stealing neither one seems bad to me. > It as complex as it needs to be > and as simple as it can be. That's only true if you factor the gain out of the equation. /L/e/k/t/u