Subject: bug#29525: Please don't default to "--unique" mode for Okular

From: Reuben Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:06:38 +0000

On 3 December 2017 at 22:15, Arash Esbati <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> From Emacs manual:
>
> ,----[ 51.4 The Emacs Initialization File [1] ]
> | When Emacs is started, it normally tries to load a Lisp program from an
> | initialization file, or init file for short.  This file, if it exists,
> | specifies how to initialize Emacs for you.  Emacs looks for your init
> | file using the filenames ~/.emacs, ~/.emacs.el, or ~/.emacs.d/init.el;
> | you can choose to use any one of these three names (see Find Init).
> `----
>
> I don't see it saying that .emacs is obsolete or should be avoided.
>

​I think I need to be more precise. Obviously, the init file is not
obsolete: ​it is the way that the custom file is loaded, apart from
anything else! But customize should be the preferred first line of
customization. Chapter 51 starts:

This chapter describes some simple methods to customize the behavior of
Emacs.

   Apart from the methods described here, see *note X Resources:: for
information about using X resources to customize Emacs, and see *note
Keyboard Macros:: for information about recording and replaying keyboard
macros.  Making more far-reaching and open-ended changes involves
writing Emacs Lisp code; see *note Emacs Lisp: (elisp)Top.

​Hence, we as package authors should not be presenting Customization and
.emacs as alternatives: this is just confusing. Like the Emacs manual, use
Customize for easy things, and Emacs Lisp for harder things.

Indeed, where I complained that the AUCTeX interface is too complicated, it
might be better to simplify it to some flags (such as "single instance"),
and require the user to write Lisp code for more complicated cases.  A good
rule of thumb might be: if the Customize interface is harder to understand
than just writing some Lisp, it's not worth having.​ (Just because some
level of configuration can be precisely expressed in a defcustom does not
mean that it should be!)

> ​I ​
> just wanted to show you the direction; please use any interface you're
> used to or like to use.
>

​I am arguing not for myself, but for the way we present Emacs to, in
particular, less-experienced users. Saying "use any interface you're used
to or like" is pleasant, but unhelpful and confusing. It is the sort of
thing that gives Emacs a reputation of being hard to understand and only
for geeks.

-- 
https://rrt.sc3d.org