Re: minibuf.texi question
Jan Vroonhof writes:
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)iskon.hr> writes:
> Indeed, it is. Okay, I withdraw the above sentence ("I don't see the
> point..."). But I maintain that the fact that the features are named
> the same and similar in nature is bound to create confusion among the
> (Lisp) users.
Why? The DEFAULT argument is what to return if the user pressed RET.
In addition some sensible magic is done. Why does it matter what
exactly these magic side effects are?
I agree. The extra magic doesn't seem worth worrying about,
even if I cared about FSF compatibility anymore, which I don't.
Sometimes I wish XEmacs were named TreeFrog so that we could
avoid the presumption of FSF compatibility.