[Replying again to Levente, same message but proofread]
* Levente Mészáros Wrote on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:56:19 +0100:
| 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. | | 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.
If you read carefully upthread, you should note that everything I've stated in this thread is about MY experience and MY usage scenarios, which I have been careful to qualify as such.
What makes you think I've extrapolated anything? The parts where I try to provide the rationale for the behaviour I outline?
Tobias seems to recognize that the `other's usage scenarios' are results of miscoding and/or not understanding how restart contours work.
|> 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. |> |> And if we are at it, why does SLDB give a number for restarts which |> do already have a 1 keystroke keybinding? q, a, c could just be |> written in place of the numbers, and those numbers could be saved for |> other restarts... but this would be my personal taste and I'm sure |> you can find arguments in your taste against it.
Because of consistency, you always want to invoke the innermost restart with 0. This is not always Q.
-- Madhu