From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) [Documentation fix still remaining] Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:46:49 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20160811112951.GA2154@acm.fritz.box> <7e1478b6-cf00-fcbf-8c24-43bdaa57e2b6@dancol.org> <415d1cca-f32c-624e-a4be-9aadcf8a0f17@dancol.org> <83inujbpek.fsf@gnu.org> <20160830171222.GA6672@acm.fritz.box> <5857ab7e-e85c-c6ae-ba1a-b1337ae57f2c@dancol.org> <83fupmm9ul.fsf@gnu.org> <67e1e007-c944-b91e-6c4b-b06b51beddc1@dancol.org> <83bn0am91r.fsf@gnu.org> <83a8fum6wv.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1472593460 32158 195.159.176.226 (30 Aug 2016 21:44:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:44:20 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: acm@muc.de, Daniel Colascione , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 30 23:44:16 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1beqpI-0007dv-6z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 23:44:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51414 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beqpF-00011Z-UJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:44:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60036) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beqp2-0000wP-VS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:43:57 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beqou-0004Zh-GK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:43:55 -0400 Original-Received: from alt13.smtp-out.videotron.ca ([135.19.0.26]:13174 helo=alt12.smtp-out.videotron.ca) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beqou-0004Yg-Aj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:43:48 -0400 Original-Received: from ceviche.home ([184.161.231.20]) by Videotron with SMTP id eqorbtzhKHh2deqosbYzMd; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:43:46 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=Lv0ysipc c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=RXLRw6V2y9MFlfnpr5gyhA==:117 a=RXLRw6V2y9MFlfnpr5gyhA==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=7z1cN_iqozsA:10 a=RNHXNxeYoTjJxXoN1JIA:9 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id E6D4F66274; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:46:49 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83a8fum6wv.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:46:24 +0300") X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfExhUuJlAfPA5BSLrrhDV6vlh+lB7rfXQv1/B4LSb67rXC+WxaAE8B++y24nu6ZqCiXwrpNcFveT5LyJq+vPuaD8hzVWIGn93fbH7DaIQTCgdwHuIeP3 GwB+anPRndEzeS7MIimT3xgbK1SUCyA/hCFAxiQo/50b/xM2snw9awI0NYl9zrIeAi8/+/0wwhnr9bXqyLStutd7Kse8myU25KWNJb+VNSeVc71e2F1OFQ2i BZlGK6Tr7rgrWX+p1FkKus+ndFpX2nU41KaknWfjCpalLefHEJve0ZX0vIB+t8V1 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 135.19.0.26 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:207008 Archived-At: > Of course we are in agreement, about the essence. Your text saus the > same as mine, except that I don't find "conservative bound" to be more > helpful than what I wrote, quite the contrary. Let's take a step back: We have 4 people in this thread who have trouble agreeing about a tiny spot of the doc but really want to see some closure. Current doc's score: Alan: -1 Daniel: -1 Eli: +1 Stef: 0 Where 0 means I can live with it. Daniel's doc's score: Alan: -1 Daniel: +1 Stef: +1 Eli: 0 [ I based the last "0" on the above paragraph where you seem to say that you prefer your text, but not super strongly, IOW you can live with it. ] For these reason, I think we should go with Daniel's wording, which only irks Alan and hence rubs fewer people the wrong way. Another advantage is that this should close this thread (I think we all know at this point that Alan won't ever agree with what you and I would agree to, which is why the discussion had died before Daniel came along). Please? Stefan