Hello, "Garreau, Alexandre" <galex-...@galex-713.eu> writes:
> This is an argument in favor of immobility. True. Immobility is sometimes good, too. > Yes, if only each user of each piece of software took the time to read > the integrality of documentation each time they used something: I don’t > and only did partially for org, yet… but for instance I did for Gnus, a > long time ago, and never did it again: as example, did you?. I don't see the point of reading the whole manual when you are looking for some specific information. You can use, e.g., indices for that. > Default are an important thing, they should fit what the most common, > unspecific, and ignorant about the software in question, person. > Documentation should be there only to adapt to more specific, and less > common, cases (and, when possible, software should be made so that to > conditionally do the right thing depending of the context so that > changing the default behavior is less and less needed). Not the other > way around. These are good rules of thumb when you are defining a default value. When the default value was set ages ago, and some users may have grown habits on it, you have to strike a balance between usage and theory. To put it differently, changing default values annoys some users, and a better default value may not be worth it. It seems that no one is firmly attached to the current default value, so I removed the truncation in "next" branch, i.e., Org 9.3. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
