From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Inconsistency in whole buffer buttons. Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 00:36:31 +0100 Message-ID: References: <200601132217.k0DMHgm05718@raven.dms.auburn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1137195501 15375 80.91.229.2 (13 Jan 2006 23:38:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:38:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: drew.adams@oracle.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 14 00:38:15 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ExYUl-0001V9-4G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 00:38:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ExYWu-0006Nf-L9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:40:24 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ExYWW-0006Kt-16 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:40:00 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ExYWT-0006Ir-KL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:39:59 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ExYWT-0006IJ-0i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:39:57 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.41.46.237] (helo=pfepc.post.tele.dk) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1ExYZW-000835-FT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:43:06 -0500 Original-Received: from kfs-l.imdomain.dk.cua.dk (0x503e2644.bynxx3.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk [80.62.38.68]) by pfepc.post.tele.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id E23A0262820; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 00:37:40 +0100 (CET) Original-To: Luc Teirlinck In-Reply-To: <200601132217.k0DMHgm05718@raven.dms.auburn.edu> (Luc Teirlinck's message of "Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:17:43 -0600 (CST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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:49042 Archived-At: Luc Teirlinck writes: > Drew Adams wrote: > > Regarding Luc's proposals for changes after the release (sorry for the > length) - > > The concrete immediate question in this thread was, should the whole > buffer buttons ask for confirmation in single option buffers? The > only reason to do so would be uniformity of behavior among Custom buffers. It is superfluous to ask for confirmation in single option buffers, so we shouldn't do that. I doubt this will be confusing to anybody. OTOH, it did confuse me the first time emacs asked me to confirm saving all options in a multi-option buffer ... but I can live with that. > > The reason why I mentioned possible changes after the release is that > I believe that the situation in single option buffers is so different > from that in multi-option buffers that it would be good to make them > _less_ alike after the release to rationalize the look and behavior of > both. I don't follow the logic of this -- IMO, the layout and the functionality of the buttons should be the same in both cases -- except for trivial differences. One such trivial difference would be to not requiring confirmation in single option buffers. I don't think that will confuse anybody. If the buttons behave very differently in multi and single option buffers, the functionality of the buttons should be fixed, rather than trying to make the buffers less similar ... -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk