Re: Suggestion: Keep original breaks

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 27.11.2013 15:52, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Am 27.11.2013 14:54, schrieb David Kastrup:
>>>> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> What I actually want is to add that behaviour as an option to
>>>>> Frescobaldi's Layout Control Mode.
>>>> So what?
>>> I know you don't care about usability features involving graphical
>>> tools such as Frescobaldi, Denemo or whatever. But there _are_ people
>>> who think that improving usability on that side actually improves
>>> LilyPond usage itself and may increase its acceptance. And this is
>>> _not_ a single-user opinion.
>> Can we skip the ad hominem attacks?  They are no substitute for running
>> out of arguments.  Thanks.
>>
> So let me rephrase my comment.
>
> "So what?" isn't very informative as an argument either.

Is "So where's the problem?" better?

> The only information I can draw from it is that you obviously don't
> care about changing LilyPond with the intent to simplify Frescobaldi
> adding an improvement.

Wrong.  That I don't care about changing LilyPond in an obscure manner
when it isn't necessary for adding an improvement to Frescobaldi.

> I can only _assume_ that you don't only don't care but probably rather
> don't _want_ to change LilyPond for Frescobaldi's sake.

I don't want to change LilyPond as an act of pure activism.  It's not
even a Frescobaldi feature we are talking about here, it is an Urs
feature.  I have absolutely nothing against improving LilyPond where
people can make convenient use of tags for getting the equivalent of
this feature.  But an Urs-only feature belongs in Urs-only files.

That may mean that we need to develop a LilyPond System of Directories
(short LSD) in analogy to TDS
<URL:http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=tds>.

Then Frescobaldi can add its own LSD to the search path with a single
option, and/or Urs can add his own LSD to the search path with some
environment variable in his ~/.profile file.

> And I can only try to do this based on my knowledge that you have more
> than once expressed similar opinions.

I have some serious doubts about your knowledge gathering process.

> So this wasn't an ad hominem attack but rather the try to make
> something useful from your useless comment.
> Actually this comment wasn't at all an argument but rather an insult,
> because by slapping this "So what?" into my face you really said that
> you don't give a damn about my motivation to try starting to
> contribute to LilyPond.

No, I said that you were stating a non sequitur.  And you keep repeating
your non sequiturs in spite of every option I explain to be feasible for
tackling the problem you perceive in a way that's more generally useful.

It's either your way, stante pede, or nothing.

> Which has substantially decreased through that, BTW.

Guess how much it improves my motivation when I am talking to a wall,
basically getting the response that I'm stupid and anything I'd propose
or implement not worth considering.

Not quite on par with being told that my work should not be supported
because I'm an obnoxious asshole.

It turns out that those topics are to a good degree orthogonal and can
be viewed independently.  Not mixing things up makes it easier to arrive
at workable solutions.

-- 
David Kastrup