[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Confused by y-or-n-p
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Confused by y-or-n-p |
Date: |
Thu, 07 Jan 2021 16:27:01 +0200 |
> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Cc: ghe@sdf.org, rudalics@gmx.at, juri@linkov.net,
> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 02:52:59 -0500
>
> > The proposed rule is very different: it says that if the announcement
> > and the discussion didn't happen, the change cannot go in.
>
> That's not a big deal. Make the announcement, have the discussion,
> and then the change can go in -- perhaps with the addition of a user
> option to enable the change.
We do all that already, just without the red tape.
It is a big deal for me to add any unnecessary red tape, because it
makes my already hard job significantly harder.
> Since adding the user option variable is meant to be a general
> solution, we may as well say that there's no need for the announcement
> or the discussion if there is aleady a user option variable to enable
> the change, and it is disabled by default.
There we go: the slippery slope of having exceptions to the rule is
already starting. We will be adding more and more exceptions, and
then we will be endlessly discussing whether a given exception can or
cannot be applied to a particular case. To what end?
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, (continued)
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/08
- Stealing minibuffers [Was: Confused by y-or-n-p], Richard Stallman, 2021/01/09
- Re: Stealing minibuffers [Was: Confused by y-or-n-p], Gregory Heytings, 2021/01/09
- Re: Stealing minibuffers [Was: Confused by y-or-n-p], Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/09
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/06
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/07
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/07
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/05