[BRLTTY] Feature request: configurable prompt pattern

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Dave Mielke wrote:

> [quoted lines by Nicolas Pitre on 2018/03/14 at 14:18 -0400]
> 
> >My turn to challenge your interpretation.  ;-)
> 
> Sure. We can have lots of fun with this one. :-)

I'm up to the challenge.  ;-)

> >The great responsibility raising your children is incumbent on you. That 
> >means *your* life becomes more complex, not necessarily theirs.
> 
> Yes, but (rather simplistically) let's complete the analogy. Our children are 
> stuck with our home and our rules. My wife and I are the ones who establish our 
> home and make those rules. That makes my wife and I like the develoeprs and our 
> children like the users. We establish the way things work and they're stuck 
> with the results of our decisions. To me, this illustrates that the 
> responsibility is on the developers to make things as easy as possible for the 
> users.

Good, I agree with that part. But keeping the same analogy: what if one 
of your kid wants to be a race car driver? You could say to your kid: 
"you can't because the family car is suitable for casual driving only" 
or "a race car is dangerous and your brothers/sisters might never have 
the skills to drive it, so for their safety you can't drive one."

You must cater to the fact that one of your kids might be a big power 
user, and that some advanced features simply won't be accessible or even 
interesting to the other kids.

> >Same thing here: if you want to use a powerful tool or feature, it can't 
> >be simple. 
> 
> But it isn't fair that some users wanting to use a more powerful tool means 
> that others should be effectively isolated from using it. Note that I'm not 
> saying that it shouldn't be done - I'm just pushing the discussion a bit the 
> other way in order to encourage discussion such that the needs of both 
> communities can best be met.

There is a point where you can't have a more powerful tool without 
assuming bigger risks.  If I am blind and I acquire a chainsaw (which I 
actually am and actually did) because I want more power than a hand saw, 
then I must be trained for it and prepared to assume the risks. Yet 
there are people saying that blind people should be effectively isolated 
from using a chainsaw. One thing I fully agree with, though, is the fact 
that chainsaws aren't for everyone, blind or not, and most people will 
be happy buying lumber already cut by default and that's OK.

> The initial requst was "I want it to work this way because the way it works now 
> is useless and a hack". I'm pushing back. The way it works now isn't a hack, 
> and it works perfectly fine for most users.

I agree. And whatever improvements/extensions to that feature must 
retain the current behavior by default for those users.

> Now, sure, let's make it work better for those with greater needs. No 
> problem with that, but let's not get it into our heads that our innate 
> cleverness gives us the right to summarily dismiss the needs of the 
> rest.

But the needs of the rest are already fulfilled as you stated yourself 
above.

> >Yet, if you want to use a powerful tool, it is your responsibility to deal 
> >with its complexity.
> 
> But that's exactly my point! Lots of people want to use NX/PRPROMPT, but that 
> doesn't mean they want to use a complex tool. Most people want to use a simple 
> tool, and it isn't fair for us to impose a more complex tool on them. So, sure, 
> some of us want to use a more powerful tool, so let's develop it in a way that 
> doesn't alienate those who don't.

Hence the need for an extended tool that provides the same results as 
the simple one by default. Those who are satisfied with the simple 
behavior simply have to ignore the new extension and they won't be 
alienated.

> My goal, here, is to try to figure out what the best design is - to 
> capture the right balance between maintaining current functionality 
> and introducing new functionality. That needs discussion, not just an 
> "I want" followed by a "here you go".

This is why my proposal had a default regexp that maintained current 
functionality.

> >This prompt matching feature gets complex with the use of regexp. It 
> >provides tremendous power over the current implementation. If you don't 
> >need that power, stick to the default and forget that regexps exist.
> 
> Yes, and that's what configuration/preferences are designed to achieve. To get 
> them right, though, is what the actual issue is. I don't want to just go for 
> it, and then end up with a basic design that we'll regret forever.

All this being said, what is your concern about the current proposal?



Nicolas