Re: [PATCH] help: colorize man pages

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: May 22, 2021, 21:48 UTC
Message-ID: <60a97c12d96a_85723208d4@natae.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <e669d76b-0bed-4eac-a942-c89b7523ca34@gmail.com>

Igor Djordjevic wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> 
> On 22/05/2021 01:04, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Igor Djordjevic wrote:
> > >
> > > ... to make the point (hopefully) even more obvious, let me 
> > > quote the whole part:
> > >
> > >   It is reasonable to configure certain software such as a text editor 
> > >   to use color or other ANSI attributes sparingly (such as the reverse 
> > >   attribute for a status bar) while still desiring that other software 
> > >   not add color unless configured to. It should be up to the user 
> > >   whether color is used, not the software author.
> > >
> > > I understand it exactly as (I think) it says - it is reasonable to 
> > > allow (the user, not developer!) to configure certain software to 
> > > (still) use color
> > 
> > This does not follow.
> 
> Sure, if that is the only part you read ("followed"), taking it out 
> of context while chopping the rest...

Language is understood bit by bit. To properly understand the sentences that follow you first need to understand the sentences that preceed.

Show 12 quoted lines

> > The contraposition of that statement is that if a text editor doesn't
> > use color sparingly, then the user should not be allowed to configure
> > such software.
> > 
> > Do you really think that's what they are saying? The user should not
> > have a choice? (with certain software) That's color fascism.
> 
> What I really think is that my message which you replied to - but 
> decided to quote only _sparingly_ ;) - already addressed both use of 
> "sparingly" and who should have the choice (not to say all the power) 
> in a very clear and explicit manner (hint: user exactly), so I'm afraid 
> I'd have nothing more to add, sorry.

I know what you said in the rest of the message, which is precisely why it does not follow, and since you ignored my argument, let me state it with logic symbols for the record.

  It is reasonable to configure certain software such as a text editor
  to use color or other ANSI attributes sparingly (such as the reverse
  attribute for a status bar)

We extract part of the message:

  It is reasonable to configure a text editor to use color sparingly

The first sentence implies the second, no information is changed.

---

You interpret that as:

  It is reasonable to allow the user to configure a text editor to use
  color sparingly

This is obviously a different sentence. You introduced a part that was not there.

Now we use logic symbols to transform your sentence:

  p = the user configures a text editor to use color sparingly
  q = it is reasonable to allow the user

This is what you said: if p -> q. The contraposition is: ~q -> ~p.

Therefore you said:

  It is not reasonable to allow the user to configure a text editor to
  not use color sparingly.

This is a fact.

What you said doesn't make sense.

---

This what no-color.org said:

  It is reasonable to configure a text editor to use color sparingly

By doing the same contraposition as above we get that it's the same as:

  It is not reasonale to configure a text editor to not use color
  sparingly.

Or in other words.

  It is not reasonable to configure a text editor to use colors heavily.

If it's the developers doing that, then that statement is correct.

This is my interpretation. My interpretation holds to scrutiny; yours does not.

They meant the developers. They are not trying to tell users what to do.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras