[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: finger-pointer curser as default for mouse-face text

From: Kim F. Storm
Subject: Re: finger-pointer curser as default for mouse-face text
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:52:15 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Luc Teirlinck <address@hidden> writes:

> Kim Storm wrote:
>    But CVS emacs is still far from being released,
> If we keep going on like this, there _never_ will be another release.

I agree, but I think this is an important issue.

>     and I guess that if we make a clean interface how to inhibit the
>     mapping for specific links, the package authors will have plenty
>     of time to adapt their code for CVS emacs.
> It is also a matter of not only documenting the new behavior, but also
> changing references to the old behavior everywhere in all manuals,
> which may be spread all over the place.  

This is a general - but user customizable - change in behaviour.

As such, we should need to document the current "standard" behaviour,
and then add a section at an appropriate place which says something
like (need to be elaborated on a little bit):

Whenever you can click with mouse-2 to follow a link, you may also be
able to follow the link by a double click or a short click with
mouse-1.  The actual mouse-1 action that you need to follow a link is
controlled by the user option mouse-1-click-follows-link.

One problem is the tooltips which say "click mouse-2 to ...".  
To fix that requires that we change all places where the tooltips
are created (unless there is some place we can put in a clever
rewrite of the message).

>                                          Realistically speaking,
> implementing the new behavior will introduce bugs that will need to be
> fixed.  Everything combined, plenty of resources will be diverted from
> working on the release, assuming we still want to have one.

I don't think there will be many bugs related to this -- some but not many.

> I have not been following this discussion, as I have had no time to do
> so.  I thought the purpose of a feature freeze was exactly that people
> would not have to divert time away from working on the release by
> worrying about substantive new features and their possible negative effects.

That's a problem of a feature freeze that's in place for more than 1 year.

If you look at the change logs, new features still creap in over time.

Global warming may also be a problem :-)

Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk

reply via email to

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