RE: typo in frame.el

[Drew Adams]

Hmmm...  I suppose so. But two silly counter-arguments, then I'll rest:

1) The unwashed masses seem to have digested ":)" OK... And they can handle
magic-eye SIRDS dinosaurs OK. Bringing them up to speed on an ASCII arrow
that pretty-much shows what it says should be a piece of cake, non?

(Then again, at least the Murrikens think Mr. Hussein was in NY on 9/11.)

2) Most emacs users are, and have been, (dare-I-say-it?) programmers. I
doubt that "<=>" is very foreign to most of them. If foreign, I doubt they
would have difficulty picking it up. And emacsers already speak "C-" and
"M-". How hard is this?

Yeah, I know, Emacs is not *aimed* only at programmers, and I would love to
see the Emacs word-processing functionality (and more!) that RMS dreams of.
But, so far...

Cheers & "Uncle!",

   Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of David
Kastrup
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 2:11 PM
To: Drew Adams
Cc: Simon Josefsson; address@hidden
Subject: Re: typo in frame.el


"Drew Adams" <address@hidden> writes:

> How about we use "<=>", conventionally, in doc strings, but we also
> explain this convention in the Emacs manual, for those who have
> never seen it? If we adopt such a convention, then we should perhaps
> also conventionally use "=>" for "implies" ("only if") and "<=" for
> "if".

I object.  Really.  This would carry the message that Emacs is
intended for mathematicians and/or scientists as main audience.  Apart
from which those symbols are just ASCII art representations from what
they are supposed to be.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum