> why ... didn't help answer this simple question?
How do you know it didn't?
Someone may have observed it and fixed it someplace else, but from the point of OP it doesn't matter to them - their system still works "as desired". The world wasn't meant to be perfect for everyone, but you can certainly carve out your own "perfect" piece of it.
It seems you have only surface knowledge and little practice of using Emacs. You're not offering any evidence to your arguments and not suggesting any alternatives. Because there isn't a practical alternative that exists today to effectively replace Emacs. You're frantically trying to grasp for reasons not to use Emacs. Why are you looking for validation on an Emacs-themed thread? If you don't want to use Emacs, just don't. If you want to use Emacs but observing obstacles, then get more concrete, instead of complaining just for the sake of it.
Why did that magic observability didn't help answer this simple question?
> Might this break some other deeply intertwined behavior someplace else? Probably
> why ... didn't help answer this simple question?
How do you know it didn't?
Someone may have observed it and fixed it someplace else, but from the point of OP it doesn't matter to them - their system still works "as desired". The world wasn't meant to be perfect for everyone, but you can certainly carve out your own "perfect" piece of it.
It seems you have only surface knowledge and little practice of using Emacs. You're not offering any evidence to your arguments and not suggesting any alternatives. Because there isn't a practical alternative that exists today to effectively replace Emacs. You're frantically trying to grasp for reasons not to use Emacs. Why are you looking for validation on an Emacs-themed thread? If you don't want to use Emacs, just don't. If you want to use Emacs but observing obstacles, then get more concrete, instead of complaining just for the sake of it.