Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> From: "Drew Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:33:47 -0700 >> >> With all due respect, don't get nasty. > > If you get arrogant, I get nasty.
We don't need an arms' race in escalation. >> If you take the (arrogant?) point of view that we have already >> achieved the "best of all possible worlds" because lots of >> discussion, research, experimentation, and expertise went into the >> existing design, then yes, it's futile not only to suggest >> repeating a past state but also to suggest any other changes. > > Not everything in Emacs is based on such an effort. The current > menu structure is. I never said that it's the best of all possible > arrangements, but the fact that we changed it from A to B does mean > that the merits and demerits of A vs B were already considered and > after a long and constructive discussion we concluded that B is > better. So going back to A without at least pointing out where the > previous considerations were incorrect is a regression (a negative > label) that wastes our valuable time and energy, and on top of that > threatens to set us back 5 or 6 years. Well, Drew is right that not every change is progress, but unless a change has produced new insights or new information is volunteered, I agree that the difference is not likely to merit wasting considerable time discussing it. We have other areas that are clearly quite more in need of further improvement. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
