[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: A wish, a plea

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: A wish, a plea
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 07:05:24 -0700

> > 2. I mentioned that a better solution (than bindings such as 
> >    `C-x C-c C-x') to the accidental exit problem is to use a
> >    confirmation message for `save-buffers-kill-emacs'.
> It's not better just because you like it.

Nor did anyone claim that. I did not even claim in #2 that what I mentioned is 
a better solution. #2 says that _I mentioned that_ a better solution is.... 
That is, #2 says that I claimed _previously_ that a better solution is....

No, of course my proposal is not better _because_ I like it. I gave reasons why 
it is better. #2 is the summary, not the argument.

The point was that my proposals were pertinent to the discussion. Whether or 
not #2 refers to the best proposal of its kind, and whether or not Juanma likes 
it, are irrelevant to pointing out that the proposal was relevant to the 

> There are people who don't want to be asked, and also don't want
> to exit Emacs by accident.

Yes, of course there are. They can customize `confirm-kill-emacs'.

The default value of `confirm-kill-emacs' should be non-nil (I vote for 
`y-or-n-p'), to help newbies (as well as some of us oldies) protect against 
accidental loss of data (work). (Yes, that "should" is _IMO_. No, I don't claim 
that Juanma agrees with me.) 

> > (BTW, it's "number" of proposals, not "amount" of proposals.)
> Why? Who says so?

(It's only a parenthetic "BTW", FYI, FWIW.) 

Why? Because proposals are countable.

Who says so? Current English usage, as always (there is no ruling English 
Academy). Here are the top Google hits ("amount number grammar"). Carry on 
further down the hit list if the top entries are not to your liking.






When English usage changes this grammar rule (in, say, 25, 50, 100, or 200 
years), Google and I will reflect that ;-).

reply via email to

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