Re: On language-dependent defaults for character-folding

[John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3006 bytes --]

>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> I've asked these questions a lot in this discussion, and still the majority
> thinks that the locale in which Emacs is started should be used for the
> defaults. So you are in fact arguing with what the majority says, not with
> me.

From what I've seen, this is a complex feature with many corner cases, some of
which may not have been encountered yet because it hasn't been "out in the
field" except for a few pretests.

> Do we have a clear definition of what are the criteria for this feature to
> be "ready for prime-time as a default"? You are in effect saying that we
> will never be able to find good answers for those questions. We shouldn't be
> dismissing a good feature such as this one, which many users like, due to
> FUD-like arguments.

Having such a clear definition would be the first criterion. :) Otherwise, I
feel like we're saying, "It sounds useful, why not enable it by default?"

Here are my somewhat fuzzy criteria:

 1. Questions about the feature should not prompt mega-threads that fail to
    reach clarity within a three week time-frame. This indicates a lack of
    clarity about the feature among the core developers, and I believe users
    will notice this lack of clarity when trying out the feature.

 2. If there is work yet to be done, we should know what the work is.
    Otherwise, the feature may change in unpredictable ways in future
    versions. If that's the case, why make it the default before those
    decisions have been made?

 3. I would like to have a sense that this is a feature with either prior art,
    or considerable experience, behind it. Instead, I get the *feeling* (from
    reading this thread) that we're just starting to explore the idea of
    character-class-based searching, and it strikes me as odd that we would
    make our first attempt at it a default behavior for all users.

I've heard several people ask for it not to be a default, and I take that
seriously. The many complexities surrounding this feature make me uneasy. If
this were a product for sale, I'd have a huge question mark next to making
this a default behavior, given the confusion and false bug reports it is
likely to raise. Nothing I've read so far in this discussion has increased my
sense of security; quite the opposite, I become more wary by the week. It
seems like the more we poke this anthill, the more critters jump out.

That said, I'm quite happy for the feature to be there, and I will most
definitely turn it on. The question is whether it should become the default
for all users from the start. We can always enable it as a default later, so I
don't see a need to hurry. This could be a great feature to introduce as a
default in 26.1, if it receives good reception from early adopters in 25.x.

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 629 bytes --]