Levente Mészáros levente.meszaros@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Madhu enometh@meer.net wrote:
- "Tobias C. Rittweiler" 87r5srbax3.fsf@freebits.de :
Wrote on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:12:08 +0100:
I'm not sure what youre asking, perhaps the flaw is in the way restarts were designed by the writers of the framework, who probably gave no thought to the issue and you are changing slime to fit that flawed view of the world.
I have not used those frameworks or looked at those tests.
-- Madhu
It's really weird to read this discussion.
You seem to be so sure about how others use slime/lisp (what they like or dislike) by extrapolating your own usage scenarios. Why don't you put a variable there? Then both of you will be ok, and others can also choose according to their own preference. Keep the old behavior as default, and it's done.
I reverted the change on two and a half grounds: a) software (like stefil) can, and arguably should make sure that the most appropriate restarts are on top of the stack, b) that the reverse numbering truly sucks for the case when the total number of restarts exceeds 10 -- and somewhat c) I see the point that lower numbers are more convenient to reach if one has a numpad available (which I happen not to have.)
-T.