Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!srcsip!nic.MR.NET!shamash!sialis!rjg
From: rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Elm 2.2 miscellany
Message-ID: <1372@sialis.mn.org>
Date: 15 Apr 89 16:16:14 GMT
References: <5191@nis.mn.org> <467@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> <14550@sequent.UUCP>
Reply-To: rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin)
Organization: Dr. Ho Laboratory and Day Care Center
Lines: 50

In article <14550@sequent.UUCP> petebob@beta532.UUCP (Pete Apple) writes:
>In article <467@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes:
>>
>>There is.  They have changed the 'q'uit from old Elm to 'q' for normal
>>quit and 'Q' for "Quick" quit.  The quick quit simply exits Elm according
>>to your default asking options in ./.elm/elmrc.  Some may find it 
>>cumbersome to have to hit SHIFT-Q to exit that way, but it can be gotten
>>used to.  
>>
>
>	Could someone who's on the development team provide the reason behind
>this change?  I don't really understand it, and don't understand why the old
>method of an option in the .elmrc was any worse.  (In fact, I felt it better.)
>True, I've already gotten used to it, but it is more cumbersome, and doesn't
>seem to provide any additional benefit.  Thanks.

I can see two lines of thought here.  

Unix is very based on lower case.  Everything you do is lower case.
So, by forcing the usage of an upper case letter, you are forced to
consciously verify that decision, rather than just do it by habit.

From an _end user_ point of view, the 'Q' is probably a good idea.
Does s/he _really_ want to quit without any verification?  Make them
consciously make that decision.  This could be valuable, depending on
the "clientele" your system supports.

From a _developer_ point of view, the 'Q' is an extra keystroke
(shift) that you consciously have to think about to be able to leave
the program the way you want to.  This isn't necessarily the way it's
desired for this type of person.

Since I can see value to both methods, I'd like to suggest for 2.3, or
preferrably the next patch, that the q/Q vs. Q/q options be a compile
time choice (or even a user selectable (.elm/elmrc) choice).

While I admit seeing the value to Q in some instances, I don't really
care for it in mine (my own preferences).  I'll be off to reverse the
choices myself in moments... :-)

(Although, as much as I'm willing to criticize and suggest changes,
I'll also mention that I'm pleased with this release.  I like the
other new implementations, and I haven't seen a corrupted mailbox yet!
(yay! :-))

-- 
       Robert J. Granvin           
   National Computer Systems     "Looks like the poor devil died in his sleep."
       rjg@sialis.mn.org         "What a terrible way to die."
{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!sialis!rjg