From xemacs-m  Fri Jun 20 13:34:43 1997
Received: from wfdutilgw.ml.com (wfdutilf01.ml.com [206.3.74.31])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA10566
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:34:43 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ml1.ml.com ([199.201.57.130])
	by wfdutilgw.ml.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/MLgw-3.03) with ESMTP id OAA08220;
	Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:30:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from commpost.ml.com (commpost.ml.com [146.125.4.24])
	by ml1.ml.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/MLml4-2.07) with SMTP id OAA18885;
	Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:38:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from spssunp.spspme.ml.com (spssunp.spspme.ml.com [192.168.111.13]) by commpost.ml.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA16760; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:38:26 -0400
Received: by spssunp.spspme.ml.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-4.1)
	id OAA23533; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:34:12 -0400
To: XEmacs Beta List <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Cc: cadet@mit.edu
Subject: Re: new features...broken code
References: <199706201812.OAA09517@sundial.MIT.EDU>
X-Face: D>:hrrB{l6#\wU;)0R:OHSTA@ayd.Oq?s@Rrc;[+z0m+<-U"$G-J6L)F2QY`qK~uPu!s1(6{\#uy!Ag/D)?'L[}xErXvxoPn8T_hKi{M]/(`BF{e}X7;hby`p\.E$rJ}Aff#BT,rdDIw\y
X-Y-Zippy: I just bought FLATBUSH from MICKEY MANTLE!
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com>
Date: 20 Jun 1997 14:34:11 -0400
In-Reply-To: David Bakhash's message of "Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:12:01 -0400 (EDT)"
Message-ID: <ocrzpslp1i4.fsf@spssunp.spspme.ml.com>
Lines: 21
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.56/XEmacs 20.3(beta7) - "Oslo"

David Bakhash writes:

> *other people responded to this thread*

I agree with Kyle; I have a funny feeling about this.

I don't think that there is anything conceptually wrong, except that
this reminds me reversing the video when reading in the password.

Just seeing the buffer that I may be saving may not be nearly enough.
Generally, I know what is in a buffer by name, and if I do not, I will
need to do more than statically look at one screenful of that buffer.

While the idea is a neat concept, I think that it doesn't do enough to
be really useful.  On the other hand, something that does enough will be 
doing too much.

I think Kyle summarized it best ("looks good, smells bad").

-- 
Colin

