[MPlayer-dev-eng] [RFC] keep fullscreen mode over aspect, file etc. change if set by user

[Reimar Doeffinger]

Hello,
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 05:53:56PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> > Then maybe you try more to explain your likes so either they can be
> > satisfied without a new commandline option or I can at least start to
> > see the need for it.
> 
> In the previous case, I think I've already argued it as far as I can,
> and you don't seem to have been swayed in the slightest; my objection
> there was not so much on like/dislike as on the fact that something
> which had worked before (and seems like it should be common) had stopped
> working, and the thing which had been fixed by the change seemed like it
> should be much more rare than the thing which broke. And, of course, I
> used the behaviour which broke but am unlikely to ever use the thing
> which was fixed.

Then why not give me the specific use case? An example of a scenario that would
make MPlayer work worse for you.

> In this case, my only real argument aside from "it's a change, change is
> bad" (which I do not really agree with) is that the current behaviour
> *does* make sense in context of the other MPlayer options, and while the
> behaviour I think I understand you as changing this to may also be
> desirable, it does not to me seem desirable enough to break the existing
> paradigm.

I don't consider it breaking any paradigm, but actually "fixing" an
existing one: That interactive changes should override commandline
options.
The change is that such an override should also persist beyond
file change, so it could be argued that this is more that just extending
current behaviour.

[...]
> > Huh? They only mail that said something like this was in reply to a 
> > suggestion for a _completely different_ approach at this,
> 
> As long as the effect is the same (in terms of removing the existing
> behaviour), which as far as I can tell from scanning the patch it
> appears to be, the same rationale applies.

Well, the difference is that my patches only changes current behaviour when the
user explicitly switch to fullscreen.

[...]
> > and the other mail from you in this thread I replied to but never got
> > an answer to...
> 
> I have made two previous posts in this thread; you replied to one of
> them, which was itself a reply to your post which started the thread,
> but not to the other. Your reply did not, so far as I could tell,
> contain anything which invited a response; you specifically said "I
> don't believe the old behaviour to be desirable enough to keep", which
> A: does not exactly inspire confidence in your willingness to be
> convinced on the issue, and B: is hard to argue against, as it's
> primarily a matter of opinion. My only argument against it (at least so
> far) is the very matter of option consistency which I mentioned above.

Obviously there was quite some misunderstanding. Firstly I used
"believe" as in "I don't believe the old behaviour is useful to anyone"
- which (in that sentence obviously) does not mean I can't be convinced
but just that I do not know.
Also your argument about consistency did not concern me much, because I
would tend towards the "interaction overrides commandline (permanently)"
approach which would be (somewhat) consistent as well.
The much better argument is that your objections aren't purely
theoretical but based on your actual use.
That is also better, because it allows proposing and discussing
alternatives to an option, as there are:
1) a command to reset such overrides (my suggestion in the email I
complained you did not answer to)
2) a different command, one which overrides options and one which does
not. I am not sure how to implement this, properties do not seem to like
an additional option, and a command/property with a completely new name
seems a bit ugly to me.

Greetings,
Reimar Doeffinger