> Set All (F => C) > Save All (F => C,S) > Get All > Standard (D => F) > Saved (S => F) > Current (C => F) > > This is clean and symmetric, and I agree with the plan to replace > Erase Customizations with Get All Standard Values. However, the > command Reset to Saved is a clean and useful command, and I think that > replacing it with Get All Saved Values would be a step backwards. > > How to get the best of both worlds? Perhaps like this: > > Set All (F => C) > Save All (F => C,S) > Get All > Standard (D => F,C) > Saved (S => F,C) > Current (C => F,C)
I believe the logical structure Miles first suggested (essentially the first one above) with the enhancement above with a single "Get All"-button is the best. It gives the possibility to preview the values before setting them. I agree (obviously). I could live with the second set of buttons, except that they all _set_ the current value, so they should be called Set All *, which produces confusion with F => C. Set All (F => C) Save All (F => C,S) Reset to Saved (S => F,C) Get All Standard (D => F) Saved (S => F) Current (C => F) No; I think we should avoid Reset to Saved. First, because it uses the confusing term "Reset" (which means other things in many preference editors). Second, it is simply Get All Saved followed by Set All, which is just two clicks and is much clearer. I don't see the disadvantage of the first group above. Why is F => C,S helpful/needed? _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel