Re: minibuf.texi question

Tuesday, 21 December 1999

        Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch&gt; writes:

...
 > If we had DEFAULT implemented, I would also recommend it over
 > INITIAL-CONTENTS.  I'm not sure whether we want it implemented.
 > The M-n feature looks very weird to me.

 I think it is a very weird feature for a first time user, however it
 also very practical, and it doesn't get in the way. Now that we
 start passing in the default value anyway for the history stuff, it
 seems to be "cheap" to implement. 
Do you think the two features could coexist?  I don't see the point of
our DEFAULT parameter if FSF-style DEFAULT is one M-n away.

...
 I haven't read the FSF manual, but I think that INITIAL-CONTENTS
vs
 DEFAULT depends on the context. i.e. if you expect that the value
 the user wants is "close" to the 'default', you should use
 INITIAL-CONTENTS. 
Yes.  I.e. you use INITIAL-CONTENTS when you expect the user to edit
the contents.  For instance, M-x w3-fetch provides a good example of
INITIAL-CONTENTS.  M-x c-set-style provides a very bad example of
INITIAL-CONTENTS.

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998