🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9302262151.AA00473@banach.math.ep.utexas.edu> jerry@math.ep.utexas.EDU (Jerry Graves) writes:
>In fact, I completely disabled the separate minibuffer even as an
>option, because observation of users familiar with ordinary Emacs made
>it clear they could never quite figure out where it was or what it was
>doing.

How thoughtful of you.  Perhaps you should disable other options too, in case
it confuses users?  Maybe you should replace emacs with vi, to prevent those of
us who start life with vi from moving up to emacs and getting confused?

>  I think if the minibuffer had not been separate to begin with
>(in Epoch), there would have been so few requests for it that it would
>have never been implemented, but I am not in a position to back this
>claim with any hard evidence, since for all I know, it was implemented
>_because_ of user requests which happened before I joined this mailing
>list two years ago.

Arguing that if users had never heard of separate minibuffers, they would never
have asked for it is a little pointless.

I must admit that it took me a while to get used to having one minibuffer in
one place, but I felt that it was sensible and would be a benefit.  I would
like to have the choice, I hope that Lucid/Epoch keep it.  But we get what we
pay for, don't we?!

Si.
-- 
Simon Marshall, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK
  "Football isn't about life and death.  It's more important than that." Bill
Email: S.Marshall@cs.hull.ac.uk   Phone: +44 482 465951  Fax: 466666   Shankley