rjg@nis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (04/12/89)
Now, I'll admit right off the bat that I haven't RTFM or delved too
deeply into the 2.2 version of Elm...
Two notes. I definately like the enhancements (personally) of how
messages are handled, even if I had to get used to them. :-)
However, I find the phrases within brackets [...] aesthetically
unpleasing now that they are punctuated. The punctuation everywhere
else visually is fine, but in these cases it's unpleasing (Nit pick!
Nit pick! :-)
Secondly, one of the things I greatly appreciated in the past versions
was the ability to turn _off_ the yes/no verification messages. So
far, I don't see a way to turn them off completely in 2.2. If there
is, I missed it. If there isn't, I know I'd greatly appreciate having
it returned.
My $.02 worth... :-)
--
Robert J. Granvin "You can always spot the IBM salesman:
National Computer Systems He's the one who is holding the bottle
rjg@nis.mn.org of Vaseline..."
{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!nis!rjgpnessutt@nis.mn.org (Robert A. Monio) (04/12/89)
In article <5191@nis.mn.org> rjg@nis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) writes: >However, I find the phrases within brackets [...] aesthetically >unpleasing now that they are punctuated. The punctuation everywhere >else visually is fine, but in these cases it's unpleasing. (Nit pick! >Nit pick! :-) You're not being nitpicky, Bob. I too find them disgusting. You just beat me to posting a response concerning it. :-). I enjoy using Elm. It seems apparent though that someone got a little wild with 'proper' punctuation. In my opinion, the '[]' enclosure is sufficient for closing punctation on Elm's messages. Why overdo it? Other than the above item, the new version is nice. Good job, guys. -Bob -- Robert A. Monio National Information Services, Inc. "The most valuable commodity that I pnessutt@nis.mn.org can think of is information." ..uunet!rosevax!nis!pnessutt -- Gordon Gecko, Wall Street
rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (04/12/89)
In article <5192@nis.mn.org> pnessutt@nis.mn.org (Robert A. Monio) writes: +In article <5191@nis.mn.org> rjg@nis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) writes: +>However, I find the phrases within brackets [...] aesthetically +>unpleasing now that they are punctuated. The punctuation everywhere +>else visually is fine, but in these cases it's unpleasing. (Nit pick! +>Nit pick! :-) + +You're not being nitpicky, Bob. I too find them disgusting. You just beat +me to posting a response concerning it. :-). + +I enjoy using Elm. It seems apparent though that someone got a little +wild with 'proper' punctuation. In my opinion, the '[]' enclosure is +sufficient for closing punctation on Elm's messages. Why overdo it? as one of the elm developers im curious to understand why the use of punctuation would actually bother you i ask this because i would have thought that either 1 people wouldnt care about punctuation or 2 else would prefer punctuation i wouldnt expect that there would be anyone against punctuation in sentential user messages why is having punctuation overdoing it :-) -- Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob OR rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, California
root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) (04/13/89)
In article <5191@nis.mn.org>, rjg@nis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) writes: > [...] > > Secondly, one of the things I greatly appreciated in the past versions > was the ability to turn _off_ the yes/no verification messages. So > far, I don't see a way to turn them off completely in 2.2. If there > is, I missed it. If there isn't, I know I'd greatly appreciate having > it returned. > There is. They have changed the 'q'uit from old Elm to 'q' for normal quit and 'Q' for "Quick" quit. The quick quit simply exits Elm according to your default asking options in ./.elm/elmrc. Some may find it cumbersome to have to hit SHIFT-Q to exit that way, but it can be gotten used to. Mark. -- Mark J. Bailey "Ya'll com bak naw, ya hear!" USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37129 ___________________________ VOICE: +1 615 893 0098 | JobSoft UUCP: ...!{ames,mit-eddie}!killer!mjbtn!mjb | Design & Development Co. DOMAIN: mjb@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US | Murfreesboro, TN USA
pnessutt@nis.mn.org (Robert A. Monio) (04/13/89)
In article <5006@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> you write: >In article <5192@nis.mn.org> pnessutt@nis.mn.org (Robert A. Monio) writes: >+In article <5191@nis.mn.org> rjg@nis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) writes: >+>However, I find the phrases within brackets [...] aesthetically >+>unpleasing now that they are punctuated. The punctuation everywhere >+sufficient for closing punctation on Elm's messages. Why overdo it? > >as one of the elm developers im curious to understand why the use >of punctuation would actually bother you i ask this because i would >have thought that either 1 people wouldnt care about punctuation or >2 else would prefer punctuation i wouldnt expect that there would >be anyone against punctuation in sentential user messages why is >having punctuation overdoing it Considering that my remarks were serious, I tend to not see any humor in your response. Proper punctuation and grammar is important in any type of text document. This was not what I was commenting on. My opinions refer to the fact that someone decided to go overboard with the '.' additions to ELM status messages. I only asked for a reason. I didn't ask for a stupid response. Now.. Shall we try this again? >:-) :-). -- Robert A. Monio National Information Services, Inc. "The most valuable commodity that I pnessutt@nis.mn.org can think of is information." ..uunet!rosevax!nis!pnessutt -- Gordon Gecko, Wall Street
rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (04/14/89)
Robert Granvin: +However, I find the phrases within brackets [...] aesthetically +unpleasing now that they are punctuated. The punctuation everywhere Robert Monio: +sufficient for closing punctation on Elm's messages. Why overdo it? Rob Bernardo: +as one of the elm developers im curious to understand why the use +of punctuation would actually bother you i ask this because i would +have thought that either 1 people wouldnt care about punctuation or +2 else would prefer punctuation i wouldnt expect that there would +be anyone against punctuation in sentential user messages why is +having punctuation overdoing it Robert Monio: +Considering that my remarks were serious, I tend to not see any humor +in your response. +Proper punctuation and grammar is important in any type of text +document. This was not what I was commenting on. My opinions +refer to the fact that someone decided to go overboard with the '.' +additions to ELM status messages. I only asked for a reason. I +didn't ask for a stupid response. Sorry, my intention was not at all to make light of your question. (I only removed the punctuation as a joke - separate from the content, which *was* serious.) You asked "Why overdo it?" and my response was more or less "Why do you consider use of punctuation 'overdoing it'?" Do you think punctuation has no place in user messages? If not, when should punctuation not be used in the way it is in normal writing? I can't respond to "Why overdo it?" if I don't see something as "overdone", because you're remark comes across like someone saying that the maid made the house "too clean" or that the painter's work was "too careful". I'm asking these questions to understand where you're coming from because we have different points of view. -- Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob OR rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, California
markw@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM (Mark H. Weber) (04/14/89)
In article <5013@pbhyf.PacBell.COM>, rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes: > I'm asking these questions to understand where you're > coming from because we have different points of view. A minor nit-pick would be that periods are only supposed to go at the end of complete sentences, not at the ends of phrases. I guess you could argue that most of the status messages have implied subjects or verbs. The only reason it's noticeable is that 1) it's different, and 2) it makes the status messages which are enclosed in square braces asymmetrical in appearance, which is distracting to eye. I suspect I'll get used to it. Good new release, team! ------------------------------------------------ Mark H. Weber ( markw@GVL.Unisys.COM ) Unisys Defense Systems - Great Valley Labs PO Box 517 Paoli, PA 19301 (215) 648-7111
petebob@sequent.UUCP (Pete_Bob Apple) (04/15/89)
In article <467@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes: > >There is. They have changed the 'q'uit from old Elm to 'q' for normal >quit and 'Q' for "Quick" quit. The quick quit simply exits Elm according >to your default asking options in ./.elm/elmrc. Some may find it >cumbersome to have to hit SHIFT-Q to exit that way, but it can be gotten >used to. > Could someone who's on the development team provide the reason behind this change? I don't really understand it, and don't understand why the old method of an option in the .elmrc was any worse. (In fact, I felt it better.) True, I've already gotten used to it, but it is more cumbersome, and doesn't seem to provide any additional benefit. Thanks. -- Pete_Bob Apple Sequent Computer Systems sequent!petebob 15450 S.W. Koll Parkway Bob is not just a name.. Beaverton, Oregon 97006 It's a way of life.. (503) 626-5700
rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (04/15/89)
In article <198@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM> markw@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM (Mark H. Weber) writes:
+ A minor nit-pick would be that periods are only supposed to go at the
+end of complete sentences, not at the ends of phrases. I guess you could
+argue that most of the status messages have implied subjects or verbs.
Yes, the latter was the reasoning behind the change. Anything that would
"count" as a sentence was "punctuated". Think of it this way: in *spoken*
language - and in written dialog of same - those things *are* considered
complete - and I speak here as a linguist. While the things ELM prints
in response to keystroke commands, e.g. "Forward message", don't come
across as sentence-like and therefore weren't "punctuated".
+ The only reason it's noticeable is that 1) it's different, and 2) it
+makes the status messages which are enclosed in square braces asymmetrical
+in appearance, which is distracting to eye.
[Actually, to nitpick back :-) perhaps the square brackets ought to have
been removed.]
But, heavens, Myrtle!! If some ELM users think to even "minor nitpick" about
things like periods added, how are we going to fair as a group on the "real"
look-and-feel changes to ELM as they occur. As an ELM developer, it scares
me to think about the consequences of enhancements that I and the others might
do (or already have done)..
+ I suspect I'll get used to it. Good new release, team!
:-) :-)
--
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library
Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob OR rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM
Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center
Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, Californiarjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (04/15/89)
In article <14550@sequent.UUCP> petebob@beta532.UUCP (Pete Apple) writes: >In article <467@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes: >> >>There is. They have changed the 'q'uit from old Elm to 'q' for normal >>quit and 'Q' for "Quick" quit. The quick quit simply exits Elm according >>to your default asking options in ./.elm/elmrc. Some may find it >>cumbersome to have to hit SHIFT-Q to exit that way, but it can be gotten >>used to. >> > > Could someone who's on the development team provide the reason behind >this change? I don't really understand it, and don't understand why the old >method of an option in the .elmrc was any worse. (In fact, I felt it better.) >True, I've already gotten used to it, but it is more cumbersome, and doesn't >seem to provide any additional benefit. Thanks. I can see two lines of thought here. Unix is very based on lower case. Everything you do is lower case. So, by forcing the usage of an upper case letter, you are forced to consciously verify that decision, rather than just do it by habit. From an _end user_ point of view, the 'Q' is probably a good idea. Does s/he _really_ want to quit without any verification? Make them consciously make that decision. This could be valuable, depending on the "clientele" your system supports. From a _developer_ point of view, the 'Q' is an extra keystroke (shift) that you consciously have to think about to be able to leave the program the way you want to. This isn't necessarily the way it's desired for this type of person. Since I can see value to both methods, I'd like to suggest for 2.3, or preferrably the next patch, that the q/Q vs. Q/q options be a compile time choice (or even a user selectable (.elm/elmrc) choice). While I admit seeing the value to Q in some instances, I don't really care for it in mine (my own preferences). I'll be off to reverse the choices myself in moments... :-) (Although, as much as I'm willing to criticize and suggest changes, I'll also mention that I'm pleased with this release. I like the other new implementations, and I haven't seen a corrupted mailbox yet! (yay! :-)) -- Robert J. Granvin National Computer Systems "Looks like the poor devil died in his sleep." rjg@sialis.mn.org "What a terrible way to die." {amdahl,hpda}!bungia!sialis!rjg
pnessutt@nis.mn.org (Robert A. Monio) (04/17/89)
In article <5013@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes: >Robert Monio: >+Proper punctuation and grammar is important in any type of text >+document. This was not what I was commenting on. My opinions >+refer to the fact that someone decided to go overboard with the '.' >+additions to ELM status messages. I only asked for a reason. I >+didn't ask for a stupid response. >Sorry, my intention was not at all to make light of your question. (I >only removed the punctuation as a joke - separate from the content, which >*was* serious.) I figured as much. Note the usage of the :-) after yours. >You asked "Why overdo it?" and my response was more or less "Why do you >consider use of punctuation 'overdoing it'?" Do you think punctuation >has no place in user messages? If not, when should punctuation not be >used in the way it is in normal writing? Of course not. I'm not referring to 'user' messages. I'm referring to the fact that someone put '.'s in each of the status messages from Elm. For example: [Keeping 8 messages and deleting 2.] My reference to overdoing the periods may be a bit extreme, but it's just damn annoying. As someone in another message noted, this usage is uncommon. It sticks out like a sore thumb. >I can't respond to "Why overdo it?" if I don't see something as >"overdone", because you're remark comes across like someone saying >that the maid made the house "too clean" or that the painter's work >was "too careful". I'm asking these questions to understand where you're >coming from because we have different points of view. Understood. I hope my explanation above is enough to warrant a decent answer. -- Robert A. Monio National Information Services, Inc. "The most valuable commodity that I pnessutt@nis.mn.org can think of is information." ..uunet!rosevax!nis!pnessutt -- Gordon Gecko, Wall Street
rjg@nis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (04/18/89)
>[Actually, to nitpick back :-) perhaps the square brackets ought to have >been removed.] > >But, heavens, Myrtle!! If some ELM users think to even "minor nitpick" about >things like periods added, how are we going to fair as a group on the "real" >look-and-feel changes to ELM as they occur. As an ELM developer, it scares >me to think about the consequences of enhancements that I and the others might >do (or already have done).. Any time you change the look and feel of something that's established, you are going to get responses. From both sides. That's always a given. The whole issue of periods within brackets has gone on way longer than it should. From a linguistic point of view, they're legal. From a visual point of view they're considered out of place and unaesthetic. Who's right? Both. What's the solution? There are basically four. 1) Return it to the way it was. Brackets, no period. 2) Remove the brackets, retain the punctuation. 3) Completely change the entire visual aspects of Elm. 4) Do nothing. This will of course apply to anything that's perceived as a change, whether it be radical or minor. However, even a "minor" change that stirs up an amount of controversy and discussion really isn't that minor anymore. Sigh. -- Robert J. Granvin "You can always spot the IBM salesman: National Computer Systems He's the one who is holding the bottle rjg@nis.mn.org of Vaseline..." {amdahl,hpda}!bungia!nis!rjg
rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (04/18/89)
In article <5204@nis.mn.org> pnessutt@nis.mn.org (Robert A. Monio) writes: +In article <5013@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes: +>You asked "Why overdo it?" and my response was more or less "Why do you +>consider use of punctuation 'overdoing it'?" Do you think punctuation +>has no place in user messages? If not, when should punctuation not be +>used in the way it is in normal writing? + +Of course not. I'm not referring to 'user' messages. I'm referring +to the fact that someone put '.'s in each of the status messages from +Elm. For example: + [Keeping 8 messages and deleting 2.] FYI, punctuation was put in all user messages, not just that "closing" message you reference here. There was a rather inconsistent use of punctuation, capitalization, and more important - terminology in user messages. +My reference to overdoing the periods may be a bit extreme, but it's +just damn annoying. As someone in another message noted, this usage +is uncommon. It sticks out like a sore thumb. + +>I can't respond to "Why overdo it?" if I don't see something as +>"overdone", because you're remark comes across like someone saying +>that the maid made the house "too clean" or that the painter's work +>was "too careful". I'm asking these questions to understand where you're +>coming from because we have different points of view. + +Understood. I hope my explanation above is enough to warrant a +decent answer. The answer to your question is: To the person on the development team who put in the punctuation simply didn't view this the same way ("sticks out like a sore thumb", "uncommon") as you. (To a large extent, it *is* a matter of taste.) After the change was distributed to the entire development team there was nary a peep of criticism, so the change stuck. -- Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob OR rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, California
david@wubios.wustl.edu (David J. Camp) (04/18/89)
In article <14550@sequent.UUCP> petebob@beta532.UUCP (Pete Apple) writes: :In article <467@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes: :> :>There is. They have changed the 'q'uit from old Elm to 'q' for normal :>quit and 'Q' for "Quick" quit. The quick quit simply exits Elm according :>to your default asking options in ./.elm/elmrc. Some may find it :>cumbersome to have to hit SHIFT-Q to exit that way, but it can be gotten :>used to. :> : : Could someone who's on the development team provide the reason behind :this change? I don't really understand it, and don't understand why the old :method of an option in the .elmrc was any worse. (In fact, I felt it better.) :True, I've already gotten used to it, but it is more cumbersome, and doesn't :seem to provide any additional benefit. Thanks. : Personally, I think the new way makes great sense. Think about what it used to require to change your mind about prompting. You had to exit elm, edit the ~/.elm/elmrc file, reenter elm and then take advantage of the new option. Now you can change your mind with two keystrokes. I am for keeping it the new way. -David- -- Bitnet: david@wubios.wustl ^ Mr. David J. Camp Internet: david%wubios@wucs1.wustl.edu < * > Box 8067, Biostatistics uucp: uunet!wucs1!wubios!david v 660 South Euclid Washington University Medical School Saint Louis, MO 63110
plocher%sally@Sun.COM (John Plocher) (04/21/89)
> >There is. They have changed the 'q'uit from old Elm to 'q' for normal > >quit and 'Q' for "Quick" quit. > >Could someone who's on the development team provide the reason behind >used to require to change your mind about prompting. You had to exit >elm, edit the ~/.elm/elmrc file, reenter elm and then take advantage of Haven't you guys heard about "backwards compatability"? If you had to make a new option to "Quit With Prompting No Matter What The Heck I Said I Wanted To Do In My .elmrc File" then WHY wasn't THAT one given the new "Q" name? Making changes for the sake of change is stupid. I am sure glad I have source to change this. -John (Mr. Opinion) Plocher
ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson) (04/21/89)
In article <645@maxim.ERBE.SE> prc@maxim.ERBE.SE (Robert Claeson) writes: >In article <5205@nis.mn.org>, rjg@nis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) writes: > >> 1) Return it to the way it was. Brackets, no period. >> 2) Remove the brackets, retain the punctuation. >> 3) Completely change the entire visual aspects of Elm. >> 4) Do nothing. > >I like number two. In most 7-bit national character sets (as defined in >ISO 646), the brackets simply aren't there. Instead, other national >characters has taken their place (most European alphapbets has more >characters than the 25 characters used in the english alphabet). So >I really don't like it when ELM outputs something like AELM 2.2PL0Z. >Substitute your favourite alpha characters for A and Z. THAT's real >unaesthetic. Before compiling Elm I always change [...] to (...) to solve that. I would not like the brackets to be completely removed. On the other hand, I do find the use of periods in single-sentence bracketed messages unnecessary. The brackets are enough to delimit the message; no period needed. But I don't find the periods very upsetting either. -- Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Hagagatan 6, S-703 40 Oerebro, Sweden Phone: +46 19-13 03 60 ! e-mail: ske@pkmab.se Fax: +46 19-11 51 03 ! or ...!{uunet,mcvax}!sunic.sunet.se!kullmar!pkmab!ske
rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (04/22/89)
In article <100281@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> plocher@sun.UUCP (John Plocher) writes:
+Making changes for the sake of change is stupid.
We didn't make changes just for the sake of change. We made changes just
to bother you.
--
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library
Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob OR rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM
Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center
Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, Californiapnessutt@nis.mn.org (Robert A. Monio) (04/22/89)
In article <5092@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes: >In article <100281@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> plocher@sun.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: >+Making changes for the sake of change is stupid. Thanks, John. A little blunt maybe, but it does get the point across. >We didn't make changes just for the sake of change. We made changes just >to bother you. Apparently. You've done a damn good job of doing it too. John is a bit more blunt then the rest of us it seems. I dropped my question about the punctuation changes only because I figured I was debating with someone who would not provide any real reason why it was done. I didn't figure it was worth my time anymore. I've noticed over the last week though that there are other people who also don't necessarily agree with your 'changes for the sake of changes' methodology. It's nice to see that these people care strongly enough about the product to point these things out. It's too bad though that you're not reasonable enough to listen and act accordingly. -- Robert A. Monio National Information Services, Inc. "The most valuable commodity that I pnessutt@nis.mn.org can think of is information." ..uunet!rosevax!nis!pnessutt -- Gordon Gecko, Wall Street
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (04/23/89)
In article <5092@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes: >In article <100281@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> plocher@sun.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: >+Making changes for the sake of change is stupid. > >We didn't make changes just for the sake of change. We made changes just >to bother you. Rob, there are apparently a number of people out there who have opinions one way or another regarding certain changes made in Elm 2.2. We all know by now that I certainly do, and we've discussed these differences in opinions via mail as well, which I think is probably the best way to discuss differences. However, we've exceeded the point for joke remarks. If your reply was a joke (which it appears to be), that's fine, but also respond to it in a manner that will satisfy the poster. I'm sure John didn't feel this to be an adequate response. Whether his presentation was as well presented as it should have been doesn't diminish the need for attention to it. Unfortunately, I've not seen much to respond to the questions and concerns of those who are feeling affected by these changes. I've seen rationalizations and intentions, all well and good, but I'm also feeling an increasing atmosphere of "We did it this way, we all felt it was better, so that's the way we're going to do it". These people have legitimate concerns and opinions, and they deserve an appropriate and thought out response, with or without a resolution. For the responses from yourself and others that _have_ been thought out and clear, thanks! But we need to begin to pay more attention to addressing them, now that more and more people are installing Elm 2.2 over their previous versions and beginning to notice these changes and how it affects them. "You'll get used to it" is not an adequate response for all items. Perhaps the changes _are_ better. Maybe everyone will get used to them. Certainly in time they will, but the concerns are rising, and there is discussion of yet further changes. Even minor ones are drawing a noticeable amount of response. Perhaps a little more community involvement in pending updates would be appropriate from a discussion level. I know I have always had to rely on the opinions of my constituents before I implement a software package or an alteration to one. Doing so after the fact only creates problems. -- ________Robert J. Granvin________ INTERNET: rjg@sialis.mn.org ____National Computer Systems____ CONFUSED: rjg%sialis.mn.org@shamash.cdc.com __National Information Services__ UUCP: ...uunet!rosevax!sialis!rjg
pnessutt@nis.mn.org (Robert A. Monio) (04/23/89)
In article <1392@sialis.mn.org> rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) writes: >In article <5092@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes: >>In article <100281@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> plocher@sun.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: >>+Making changes for the sake of change is stupid. >> >>We didn't make changes just for the sake of change. We made changes just >>to bother you. > > [Bob's remarks] Excellent, Bob. Bravo. You said it better than I could have. Too bad it seems to go on deaf ears though. -- Robert A. Monio National Information Services, Inc. "The most valuable commodity that I pnessutt@nis.mn.org can think of is information." ..uunet!rosevax!nis!pnessutt -- Gordon Gecko, Wall Street
rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (04/23/89)
In article <5216@nis.mn.org> pnessutt@nis.mn.org (Robert A. Monio) writes: +In article <5092@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes: +>In article <100281@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> plocher@sun.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: +>+Making changes for the sake of change is stupid. + +Thanks, John. A little blunt maybe, but it does get the point +across. + +John is a bit more blunt then the rest of us it seems. I dropped my +question about the punctuation changes only because I figured I was +debating with someone who would not provide any real reason why it +was done. I didn't figure it was worth my time anymore. The answer to the punctuation issue was already posted. I'll repeat it here for the last time. Question: Why was proper punctuation used in elm 2.2 where it appears needlessly in those "mail disposition messages" when you leave elm? I say "needlessly" because those messages are already within square brackets. Answer: This was part of an effort not limited to just those messages, but rather a quite extensive change to make user messages more consistent among themselves in: style, terminology and punctuation. This consistency in user interface and proper use of punctuation was seen as a plus and there were no objections to the change within the elm development group. It didn't occur to anyone in the group that a teeny number of the messages that were changed were also in square brackets, and that someone mind find the use of punctuation in square brackets not just redundant but offensive. +I've noticed over the last week though that there are other people who +also don't necessarily agree with your 'changes for the sake of changes' +methodology. Excuse me, but I don't think anyone on the elm development team views any of the changes as simply "for their own sake". + It's too bad though that +you're not reasonable enough to listen and act accordingly. In fact, the issue of those "mail disposition messages" has been discussed in the elm development group. What makes you think we haven't been listening? What counts as "acting accordingly?" (That's not a rhetorical question.) -- Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob OR rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, California
rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (04/23/89)
In article <1392@sialis.mn.org> rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
+Unfortunately, I've not seen much to respond to the questions and
+concerns of those who are feeling affected by these changes. I've
+seen rationalizations and intentions, all well and good, but I'm also
+feeling an increasing atmosphere of "We did it this way, we all felt
+it was better, so that's the way we're going to do it".
Why *isn't* the following an explanation of why a change was made: "We
did it this way because of thus-and-such benefits and because we didn't
see any disadvantages."? What more do you want for an explanation?
+ These people
+have legitimate concerns and opinions, and they deserve an
+appropriate and thought out response, with or without a resolution.
Which questions do you think have not been answered? Several of
us on the development team **have** been here answering the questions
and listening to the comments. Nevertheless, elm development is a
volunteer effort, not a paid one. Additionally, elm is a gift, not a right.
+ "You'll get used to it" is not an adequate
+response for all items.
"You'll get used to it" has *never* been the whole response to *any* question.
+ I know I have always had to
+rely on the opinions of my constituents before I implement a software
+package or an alteration to one. Doing so after the fact only creates
+problems.
Fine. When do we get paid for our efforts? :-)
--
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library
Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob OR rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM
Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center
Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, Californiascs@lokkur.UUCP (Steve Simmons) (04/24/89)
On
[Deleting your entire mailbox.]
vs
[Deleting your entire mailbox]
Kristoffer Eriksson's comments about changing brackets to parens points
up a part of the punctuation/no punctuation controversy. Most folks don't
think of brackets as punctuation marks. Long time computer folks [like
me] do. So when computer folks see the brackets and the periods, it's
percieved as double punctuation. I went and did a real brief survey, and
sure enough brackets with punctuation looked "funny" to the computer folks
but OK to others.
The brackets mean "what's inside here is a message, what's outside isn't."
They are a delimiter, not punctuation. So why not break the mold of what
us computer folks expect and still retain by punctuation by changing
[Deleting your entire mailbox.]
to
[ Deleting your entire mailbox. ]
A very small change, but suddenly the message looks like what the
developers intended -- a tiny box holding a grammaticly correct
phrase. It no longer looks like a double-punctuated phrase. Note
the double-space at front, single at back.
Or you could even go whole hog, drop the brackets, and highlight
the phrase.
--
+ Steve Simmons, Inland Sea Software, Ltd. scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us +
| 9353 Hidden Lake, Dexter, MI. 48130 313-426-8981 |
+ "When Dexter's on the Internet can Hell be far behind?" +pmm@mips.COM (Paul M. Moriarty) (04/24/89)
With all this discussion going on about changes to Elm, I finally feel I
have to add my $0.02 worth.
I'd like to thank the Elm developers for an excellent job with the 2.2
release. As one of the testers of this release, I can say that my questions
and problems were answered/addressed in a timely and professional manner by
those invloved.
Now, as for the changes, I believe Syd has stated here that great attempts
were made to standardize the behaviour of Elm in this release. Whenever one
attempts such a thing, some changes must be made. I also recall Syd saying
something about not making significant changes to the look and feel of Elm
again in upcoming releases. That is enough said on that matter as far as I
am concerned.
To address the discussion concerning public discussion of changes to Elm that
are being made by the developers, I'd have to say that this is a bad idea
unless the changes are so major and have such great impact to warrant it. It
appears that Syd is trying to do a major release every six months. This would
be a major task even if all of the developers were in the same building, let
alone being spread out all over the world. The release process would take many
months longer were every proposed change discussed on the net.
If you really feel strongly about Elm and its future development, then join
the development team, either as a developer, tester or both.
If you really do not like the 2.2 release or feel that it is going to confuse
your user base then your choice is a simple one. Don't install it. Nobody is
forcing you. There are several Mail User Agents available today, simply pick
another.
Finally, these opinions are my own, not MIPS', nor the Elm development
group's.
--
Paul M. Moriarty pmm@mips.com {ames,decwrl}!mips!pmm
MIPS Computers Systems
Not me baby, I'm too precious ....