Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu
From: jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (John G Dobnick,EMS E380,4142295727,)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Elm command misfeature
Message-ID: <990@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>
Date: 14 Feb 89 20:41:30 GMT
References: <4693@pbhyf.PacBell.COM>
Sender: news@csd4.milw.wisc.edu
Lines: 77


From article <4693@pbhyf.PacBell.COM>, by rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo):
> In article <963@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (John G Dobnick) writes:
> 
[Comments and complaints about the "Z" command, which I claim is a
mis-feature.  (Or at least that it's *implementation* could be improved.)
These comments were interpreted as being somewhat "intemperate" by Rob,
and he was right.  I was not in the best mood at the time, and I let my
annoyance get away from me.  Sorry about that -- I'll try to be less
inflamatory.]
> 
> +  (I note that the "vi"
> +editor uses "ZZ" to exit, but this requires *TWO* keystrokes.  If the
> +intent was that Elm emulate this exit command, its implementation is
> +faulty.)
> 
> Vi is in no way a user-interface standard for ELM, although our experience
> with vi and other programs may give us ideas for ELM from time to time.
> 

Let me just say that this is "non-intuitive behavior" in my book.  "ZZ"
sure *looks* like a vi command. 

May I suggest that such an "exit command", that *changes* the state of
the mail file in an irrevocable manner, depend on more than a *single*
keystroke.  Slipped fingers (quite easy given the adjacency of shift and Z
keys on a lot of keyboards), modem noise, and possibly other things, can
lead to annoying loss of messages.  Elm is very good about requesting
confirmation for other actions that lead to the irrevocable deletion of
messages.  This command should also do that.

> +Also, please note that it is very easy to *accidentally* hit a "Z" if
> +one's fingers miss the "shift" key (on at least some keyboards, "shift"
> +and "Z" are adjacent).
> 
> Easy for you, difficult for others. But, in fact, your complaint has been
> noted. Now if this clutziness were found to be more common, we ELMgineers
> will  be glad to *improve* (notice I didn't use a loaded word like
> you did: "correct") ELM.

Klutzy I may be, but is there *anyone* who doesn't make typos?

See above comments.  I also note that the Z command is apparently the only
exit command that does *not* require or request confirmation.  ("x" is not
a problem because it doesn't *change* anything.  And I *do* use the ask=on
option.)  I still claim that a *single character* command that can 
potentially "lose" messages without confirmation is not "user friendly".
This strikes me as contrary to the philosophy, as I understand it, of Elm.

I repeat my request for a change:  Require *two* "Z"s.  Or make this command
"configurable".  Or delete it entirely.

Personally, I think this command causes more problems that it cures.
One can configure the "q" command to perform (almost all of) the "Z"
functions after all, can't one?  So why have yet another command to do this?

A thought.  Since "q" can do *almost* everything that "Z" does, perhaps
a new elmrc option, say "alwayssave", can control the remaining function,
whether already read messages are saved in the "save" file.  This would 
allow the set of
	alwaysdelete = ON
	alwaysleave = ON
	alwayssave = ON
	ask = OFF
options to cause the "q" command to behave exactly as the "Z" currently does.
[And then I can turn ask=ON and have my security blanket back!  :-) ]

[Note to the Elm developers.  Please copy me on discussion of this item,
assuming there *is* any further discusstion of it.  I really would like
to know what the general feeling is on the subject.  Thanks.]


--
-- 
John G Dobnick
Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
INTERNET: jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu