David Aguilar <davvid@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > (The text below is from the original thread; sorry I don't have it handy > so I just replied here instead) > >> ... but would it be simpler if we made it an extended boolean, i.e. >> >> true, yes, on, 1 -> same as "immediate" >> false, no, off, 0 -> same as "never" >> immediate -> same as what we currently do >> never -> same as what we currently do >> prompt -> same as what we currently do >> number -> same as what we currently do > > I do think that, "0 -> same as never," makes a lot of sense from a > usability perspective. I obviously do not agree. "Suggest the right spelling and let the user decide without time-bomb" is a very useful and safe UI, and the above summary was done by mistake. > I would instead recommend that, "1 -> same as prompt," would be a safer > and less surprising behavior. If the user wants "immediate" they can be > explicit about it. "immediate" is the most dangerous of all of these > options so adding ambiguous routes to it seems like a step backwards. Thanks for raising your concern. As somebody who does *not* use the time-bomb UI that makes me wait when the heuristics guessed correctly and forces me to scramble to hit \C-c when it didn't, I am not qualified to comment in favor of such a huge behaviour change, so I won't, and let others discuss. > I don't really think backwards-compatibility is much of a concern here > at all. It *would* be a concern if we were moving from a safe behavior > to a less-safe behavior (like this patch currently does) but not so in > the other direction like I'm proposing by making "1" mean "prompt".
