Re: [ELPA] New package: transient

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Philippe.

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 21:31:46 +0200, Philippe Vaucher wrote:

> > > You miss the central point of my argument. The problem is not that the
> > > doc is hard to find, it's that I *have* to find it to know which
> > > are the related functions.

> > Let me put it to you that there is NO PROBLEM here.  If you, for any
> > reason, forget the function name `assq' you can find it within seconds
> > by typing i alist in the manual.  And if you don't like reading
> > documentation, why make that everybody else's problem?


> I suggest you go out an take a deep breathe. Your tone is extremely
> unpleasant, and remember that I was asked to clarify what I meant so I did.

Thanks for reacting to my post.

> At no point am I suggesting this is mandatory and that everyone should do
> like I say.

[ .... ]

> I never talk about replacements.

In another post on this thread, you wrote:

> Yes, and given we can make aliases to the old names we don't break
> backward compatibility, and we can reasonably easily write something
> that converts existing code to the new names, and eventually deprecate
> the old names :-)

That looks strongly to me about replacements.  And note you used the verb
form "can" rather than the more gentle, conditional form "could".

I don't see anything but a desired compulsion implied by that paragraph.

There has not yet been a discussion about whether your proposed change is
a good idea or not.  I am suggesting, strongly, it is not.

[ .... ]

> I understand I apparently touched a nexus by discussing this and having
> some people agree with me, but if you are not able to discuss this in an
> open manner I suggest you refrain from discussing it at all.


> Kind regards,
> Philippe

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).