[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: typo in frame.el

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: typo in frame.el
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 14:57:39 -0700

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!",


-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of David
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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]