On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, John Levon wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 01:15:07PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: > > > I think you are being pedantic and you think I don't understand... > > > > > b) because you state it is unimportant (see above) > > > > it is not worth losing sleep over, getting a migraine or an ulcer from > > or suffering a heart-attack or anurism for. > > But it is worth fixing.
I don't think I ever said it wasn't worth trying to fix a problem just that sometimes we need to compromise before suffering a fatal heart-attack from distressing about it. > > I tried to make you see how silly it was by suggesting we remove the > > search-and-replace feature as well. > > But this is a logical fallacy, so I don't see what place it has in a > reasonable argument. It was Friday. > > anyway, your buffer-new patch seems almost okay except I can't > > navigate to a directory and then name the file I must instead type the > > whole path (if that path isn't the default one). > > In which case the macro to do file-new, buffer-save to bring up the file > dialog is the best solution for your use case. It seems the best solution overall. Although I miss the old ability to File->Open a new file -- useful when you think you wrote something but can't find it and then start a new file instead or any number of other situations. Don't panic, I'll just have to get used to the new consistent way of doing things. > > Have you bothered to ask on the users list yet who uses it and why? > > I shall do. I must point out again that the existence of a user using it > proves nothing as to its sensibleness (apologies for the, erm, English). User count is unimportant. It's the "why" part of the question that is informative -- however you need to know who uses it in order to ask them why they use it (or at least you would likely learn both bits of info at the same time on a mailing list). Allan. (ARRae)
