Re: basic question: going back to dired

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 01:32, Bastien Guerry <bzg@altern.org> wrote:

> But we're not discussing about what could have been done 20 years ago,
> are we?  Discussing the terminology today, my point is that it might be
> risky to "import" some terms just because they are commonly used
> elsewhere.  If they give the right representation of the thing they
> refer to, why not.

Well, I'm discussing about what the consequences are of the choices of
20 years ago, and whether we should be careful in the future (now that
tabs and other IDE-like features are being discussed in emacs-devel).

> Because it's an example of what could seem to be a good candidate for
> replacing buffer.  But I think that the representations an Eclipse user
> has of a workspace doesn't designate the notion of a buffer adequately.

OK, though I think that's giving too much credit to Eclipse.

> Sure - I'm just pointing possible pittfalls.

Yes. Thanks for rational, rudeness-free discussion.

> Okay, but terminology and concepts are often intertwingled.
> That's all the fun of such discussions.

;-)

> If it's too hard, it can't be that useful...

Exaggerating a bit (OK, a *lot*), that's like saying that solving the
world famines is not useful because it is hard.

   Juanma