chad wrote: > The bug was better in that the undefined behavior from > sending known-bad data to the console hasn't yet caused you > trouble that you've identified. Everyone (who's looked at > the code) acknowledges that it was doing the wrong thing. > The fact that the bug didn't hurt you and you got used to it > is exactly what I meant by "adapted themselves".
-1 > What the other user (RMS, in this case) _wanted_ to do was > to use a console (not window system) emacs to look at > a range of characters that extends beyond ASCII. > The specific implementations he was using did that right > some of the time and wrong some of the time. When it was > wrong, it failed in a certain way. He adapted himself to > that failure. -2 > The alternative that emacs-devel is trying to establish (via > experiments, etc/PROBLEMS changes, and perhaps code patches) > will make the system fail less often -- that is, do what the > user wants more often. The argument in question is basically > "Don't make the software do what the user wants more often > if it changes away from the bugs that are already familiar > to me", especially when that argument is expressed *in the > middle of fixing the problem*, as a discouragement from > fixing the problem for all users, then we've arrived at > "That's horrifying." ala XKCD 1172. -3 -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal
