9:16 a.m.
Kyle Jones <kyle_jones(a)wonderworks.com> writes:
> As I said, we're plain lucky that our users never notice
this
> gorgeous feature.
ummm, _I'm_ one of your users.
You can't notice the feature because you are a) a long-time Emacs
user, and b) run with zmacs-regions == nil. I'm not sure which one is
more important.
Do I have to unsubscribe to xemacs-beta and feign ignorance to have
a voice that matters? Why do the "loyal customers" have to battle
just to keep the tool we love, just so you can attract new
customers?
I don't understand these questions. I think my point was clear
enough.
transient-mark-mode/zmacs-regions broke all kinds of stuff, all so
that some folks could see the region. A visible region could have
been implemented without the crock that we have today. Now that we
have the crock you're going to make it worse by changing the marking
rules under zmacs-regions.
I'm not arguing that the actual change should be done yet (that would
be Didier). I'm trying to establish that the current behaviour is far
from obvious, so we disagree at the very start.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Mix 2 table spoons sugar with 1 spoon salt. Put it in a bottle
and stick a fuse into it. Say "Shit!" when it doesn't detonate.
9:58 a.m.
New subject: Why using (push-mark) ?
I wrote these queswion because at this moment I'm feeling majorly
picked upon. My opinion has less value apparently because I
understand how Emacs works. So instead of encouraging users to
become more like me, i.e. grokking things beyond the obvious,
we're doing the opposite. I find this terribly distressing---
far more distressing than the change of a particular behavior,
which would be of no consequence to me anyway.
I'm not arguing that the actual change should be done yet
(that would be Didier). I'm trying to establish that the
current behaviour is far from obvious, so we disagree at the
very start.
I agree that the behavior is not IMMEDIATELY obvious or logical.
Many things aren't. But as you learn more, non-obvious things
start to make more sense. Thus my point about not catering to
ignorance.
10:13 a.m.
New subject: Why using (push-mark) ?
[ ＠^%&＠#%$ Majordomo. ]
> Do I have to unsubscribe to xemacs-beta and feign ignorance
> to have a voice that matters? Why do the "loyal customers"
> have to battle just to keep the tool we love, just so you
> can attract new customers?
I don't understand these questions. I think my point was
clear enough.
I wrote these queswion because at this moment I'm feeling majorly
picked upon. My opinion has less value apparently because I
understand how Emacs works. So instead of encouraging users to
become more like me, i.e. grokking things beyond the obvious,
we're doing the opposite. I find this terribly distressing---
far more distressing than the change of a particular behavior,
which would be of no consequence to me anyway.
I'm not arguing that the actual change should be done yet
(that would be Didier). I'm trying to establish that the
current behaviour is far from obvious, so we disagree at the
very start.
I agree that the behavior is not IMMEDIATELY obvious or logical.
Many things aren't. But as you learn more, non-obvious things
start to make more sense. Thus my point about not catering to
ignorance.
11:31 a.m.
New subject: Why using (push-mark) ?
Kyle Jones wrote:
I agree that the behavior is not IMMEDIATELY obvious or logical.
Many things aren't. But as you learn more, non-obvious things
start to make more sense. Thus my point about not catering to
ignorance.
IMHO, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the defaults should be
orientated towards newbies, rather than people who know how to make
XEmacs do whatever they want.
OTOH, it might never occur to someone to define this particular
behaviour. So maybe it should be conditionalised upon a variable
(which would be mentioned in the docstring for
{beginning,end}-of-buffer).
Ultimately, it is only the default behaviour that is being discussed.
Personally, I don't like it. So I just defadvice'd these functions to
flet push-mark to an empty function.
--
Glynn Clements <glynn(a)sensei.co.uk>
10:15 a.m.
New subject: Why using (push-mark) ?
From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr>
Date: 14 Oct 1998 10:16:57 +0200
You can't notice the feature because you are a) a long-time Emacs
user, and b) run with zmacs-regions == nil. I'm not sure which one is
more important.
Probably the former since I run with (eq zmacs-regions t) and pretty
much agree with Kyle, although I don't think I'm quite as vehement
about it.
I'm not arguing that the actual change should be done yet (that would
be Didier). I'm trying to establish that the current behaviour is far
from obvious, so we disagree at the very start.
To get as far as typing M-< or M-> an emacs user must already be
beyond what is obvious.
Rick
9539
days inactive
9539
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Glynn Clements -
Hrvoje Niksic -
Kyle Jones -
Rick Campbell