[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [ELPA] New package: transient

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: [ELPA] New package: transient
Date: Sun, 03 May 2020 20:29:25 +0300

> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
>  address@hidden
> From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 20:04:38 +0300
> The apropos command has pretty much the same problem with filtering and 
> ordering. Only more difficult, since it offers more matches.

It offers more matches because it finds what completion cannot.

> > And I don't see what's wrong with that.  I saw what I thought was the
> > wrong tool for the job, so I suggested to use a better tool.  Why do I
> > have to "acknowledge" a problem in using a wrong tool, instead of
> > pointing out that it's wrong?  Why is it "reasonable" to used the
> > wrong tool and expect that it produces optimal results?  It isn't.
> Calling a tool that many people have been employing for years 
> "inadequate" is mildly insulting and dismissive of others' experience.

I'd rather expect that people would listen to better tools being
presented to them, and would consider using them to enrich their
experience and make their everyday's life better.  There's nothing
dismissive in providing answers to questions and pointing out how to
get some job done.  Otherwise, we'd need to consider entire forums
like help-gnu-emacs and reddit "dismissive" and "insulting", which I
think is absurd.

> Even if I start using apropos and the manual more, I will continue using 
> code completion and describe-xxx commands nevertheless, and better 
> naming would still help there.

It's okay to decide not to use some of the tools we have, if you don't
like them.  I'm talking to those who might decide otherwise.

reply via email to

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