Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch> writes:
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)iskon.hr> writes:
> > 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.
Our style default parameter is about putting the default answer in
the history when you just hit RET. That is totally independent of
the cursor-down feature.
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
Consider: if we are adding the DEFAULT argument to read-string,
read-command, and read-variable, which one do we add? Obviously,
we're adding our "returned-value-if-you-just-press-RET" version of the
DEFAULT argument. Don't you think that this creates a dangerously
silent and subtle incompatibility with FSF?
Code that says (read-string "prompt: " nil nil "default") will do one
thing in FSF, and something else in XEmacs. All subtly and silently.
Otherwise you would have to say "To get your prompt in the
type M-n before RET". IMHO that requires too much foresight on the
part of the user.