|
From: | ken |
Subject: | Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete] |
Date: | Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:02:15 -0400 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20110928) |
On 10/04/2011 02:40 PM Jeremiah Dodds wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:44 AM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:Jeremiah, To be considered a *hidden* assumption (which is what you really meant to say) to a proposition, it must logically necessary for that proposition. What you're calling "assumptions" below are not.Luckily we are not using a language where words only have one meaning, nor are we in a discussion where all the definitions of words are meant to have the definition used in logic.
Dismissing logic, are we? I suspect this is the reason for the S/N here approaching zero.
Since you seem to be either trying to dismiss arguments by finding flaws unrelated to the main points of the arguments, or actually missing the main points of the arguments by being distracted or something, here are my main issues with the post you made earlier in a condensed form:
Very ironic that you should say that. Please read on.
1. You are making it sound like the sole reason for people wantingthe change is so that emacs will act like other editors.
I not only was making it sound like that, that's exactly what I was saying. And it was *all* that I was saying. I said this because, in fact, two people posted in favor of the changes and for no other reason than the proposed changes complied with how 'modern editors' worked. Please re-read my original post and you'll see I already said this.
Even if this is the case, analysis of the change should not stop there, what should be looked at (if possible) is whether or not there's a good reason why many other editors have the proposed behavior. If there is, then the argument about changing "just" to emulate other editors doesn't hold well.
Again, if you reread my original post, you'll find you're now arguing against something which you're imagining that I said.
2. The argument about wanting to avoid changes because they are "appeals to fashion" can be applied to wanting to make the change with just as much weight. Keeping the behavior just because "that's the way it is" is just as much of an "appeal to fashion", it's just appealing to the fashion current in Emacs.
Not at all. You're obviously not aware of the quite important principle of UI development which counsels against throwing surprises at users.
The same flaw that is present in the whole of your argument is present in that second point -- the arguments *for* keeping the behavior are *not* as simple as "well that's just the way it is". The arguments *against* keeping the behavior are also not just "but Mom, everyone is wearing them!".
Again, re-read my original post. Don't try to put words or arguments in it that aren't there. I didn't write what you quote above, nor did I even imply that. So the "flaw" you're talking about is only in statements coming out of your imagination.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |