chaffee@reed.bitnet (Not Max) (09/14/90)
In article <1990Sep8.020207.913@lokkur.dexter.mi.us> scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons) writes: >Admins should be able to configure elm on a site-wide basis with a >master elmrc file. Users should be able to override the site stuff >with their own elmrcs. I agree completely. >The stuff about users being able to handle their own elmrcs isn't so. >If the naive user changes one simple thing (such as changing his editor >from vi to jove), all of his settings are saved. This is a problem two >ways. First, it causes exactly the problem fitz describes. Second, >the options displayed in the options are incomplete, so the naive user >can't change them. We ought to (a) get *all* the options in there, The limited number of options has always struck me as a positive thing. Ever feel a little intimidated by huge pages full of strange options and commands in no particular order (that is, alphabetical), when all you really want to do is change something really simple? I have. And if you do want to get down and dirty, the elmrc is great because there's enough space there for a *descriptive*comment* next to every option. Or to make the point in a different way, the options page is for options which may change often (User level, sorting criteria); elmrc's are for options you'll change when you have the time to root through a huge unsorted list of possibly confusing -- but (hopefully) well-documented -- defaults. >(b) when writing an elmrc file, save only those options which are different >from the system default file. God, no! Do you mean the elmrc file might be missing some options? The best thing about elmrc is that everything *is* in there, so you can be sure you didn't miss something when you go through it all. Every couple of months I go through the whole thing, line by line, and configure it just so. >fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) writes: >>People who want to muck with their elmrc's better have a good understanding >>of how it works, or they can badly burn themselves. I'd say let them learn >>how the defaults work before letting them modify anything. It's easy >>enough to create a default elmrc. Exactly what level of control are you advocating here? It'd be silly to have each user ask the sysadmin for permission to get her own elmrc file... Or are you saying (as I did above) that we should not cram expert options into the options page? And how -do- you create a default elmrc? By deleting the old one? If so, ... >pmm@mips.COM (Paul M. Moriarty) writes: >> I'd strongly suggest that the default elmrc be written if .elm is being >> created or if .elm exists and elmrc doesn't. ... then this is a perfect suggestion. Is this what happens now? Also, I love the fact that comments are written out in every elmrc file now, instead of having the elmrc.info file. - Alex
ncrr@turing.newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Ritson) (09/17/90)
In article <15452@reed.UUCP>, chaffee@reed.bitnet (Not Max) writes: >In article <1990Sep8.020207.913@lokkur.dexter.mi.us> scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons) writes: >>(b) when writing an elmrc file, save only those options which are different >>from the system default file. > >God, no! Do you mean the elmrc file might be missing some options? The >best thing about elmrc is that everything *is* in there, so you can be sure >you didn't miss something when you go through it all. Every couple of >months I go through the whole thing, line by line, and configure it just so. > >And how -do- you create a default elmrc? By deleting the old one? If so, ... > >Also, I love the fact that comments are written out in every elmrc file now, >instead of having the elmrc.info file. Would if be worth recognising a DEFAULT keyword in the elmrc file (for all configure options) like this: # where to save my mail to, default directory is "Mail" maildir = DEFAULT Having done that, it is a simple matter to reset everything to DEFAULT, or that could even be done from the options menu. My feeling is that the meaning of DEFAULT shoud be as defined by the released documentation. (Ok how many of you sysadmins have properly supplied and/or updated the documentation when you modify or install public domain software. I know I'm guilty for one). Chris Ritson.