From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Boruch Baum Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:34:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20191101093423.q6qm3eijb6ilrkpg@E15-2016.optimum.net> References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@E15-2016.optimum.net> <87wocmvt5w.fsf@joffe.skangas.se> <20191030222159.rwfn7clgfjh36dze@E15-2016.optimum.net> <875zk5x2v1.fsf@joffe.skangas.se> <20191031012641.lam4pwo3cenf7tsu@E15-2016.optimum.net> <83h83pnfyq.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="97595"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Cc: 34338@debbugs.gnu.org, stefan@marxist.se To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 01 10:38:15 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iQTNk-000PEh-WA for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 10:38:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37010 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iQTNj-0005Gf-L5 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:38:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36021) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iQTKi-0002uL-MI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:35:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iQTKg-0005oX-GX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:35:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:46219) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iQTKg-0005nV-BK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:35:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iQTKg-0000tV-7B for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:35:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Boruch Baum Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:35:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34338 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix Original-Received: via spool by 34338-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B34338.15726008813404 (code B ref 34338); Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:35:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 34338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Nov 2019 09:34:41 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55040 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iQTKL-0000sq-2k for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:34:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:43595) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iQTKI-0000sb-DQ for 34338@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:34:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1572600870; bh=3o9Qm8qQuYjBLXts933ajBYdvBXMRS3l0PpO/KDWnPo=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=hCZ0bnOhSLRxVPRHWJLBOoiwFEGORV1R4wDBxmgyjSxTWkunJGEgJCZLURvVZpvyJ LPd7Rd2p1iOtVaxV5GwpJoTZ3E077YpbMBpJXTWnkVPLiSmL23JQWtQcrUuys5+Mr5 8nS5OL8mYGJd1iaG659IwCsVryGWR4f7Kem9DYMU= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Original-Received: from E15-2016.optimum.net ([96.246.226.236]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.184]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MrhQ6-1heyx73wKC-00nlTB; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 10:34:30 +0100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83h83pnfyq.fsf@gnu.org> X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:zho9tByaQgKFv65uZ5/FdhWegd/03b+foABF8X34AVto3fh7mIX Kq5yoHyQBKe6uKMlRoGgmn/X0jxJ+Mykt1/WTbaYMTstrUM1JMmKQyt+V3ewH6g3F9X6mDy kuZh4Uq0eTVqQsfcIOgW0F1mOvlb/SKK4DShh4TCXCHXHQRaMdwY7ZaoOLFA4k/9luGFZ9F QTlED3WECquEOhN/5yx7w== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:KEmT/iitStE=:QI9TpeVm95mppxbn5g4Urd V+Fvy2dLme26FI98NZ4ziJaLb4sGsaMQejjhs7Kolan0unsIZJe8qgqYr639xBmlYoGgkdFA3 xxekD9WTvysr6bqbw3u4xh4eY0+kShBv7VWmthkh/euQoQ6UCEa3keu06UW2wPvSns4DIqy/Y FPZoSEyhAaQv5FO2Oa6MWOqBI/NlVazcc+2VFwF1deB3bZq/gA+pSRfNJfIizh8PP81W2sn2z rpiXRW49XypkC2vaPg3QIcuWHtdKNrLFXD5/zHj5M+wAi8qRUyjiBuqJEuulzaTXYdOj5r+Xv oYPIDTyfOahk3jilRd7UMVxaebx10fec11nmjPxdbEVp1lDr1R8Q5oZriHtbPn8yXfF46WqIL 0A5ayNjKEoTRWbnUFE0qmK+9F1ybJdfU3vZzY5P+E+U6nwdDlXNZOIEzRFbbcBUERWHItghHD gtTGtM0mhMMWWSSQn2hrI1ZQ0mQ39JmQ2G/WRUs6VC7S4q8Nlx/ZZfMDNUcgEQizQvk7r9yH+ oOlyB6o9SWCas9l+QFvWcITsmGrA4Ha241vaiIjROiRkQVHZ79YXNNO4tMlIQu0E/He1DYiDr +Ax/cjvnBy+WkNuiMBjNVsEuE9GNrqNkLDWeFpjxsIxQTZYTxxjfIIwVne9Rb64jhAKsOBFSk icCndP1xTVQpnQDmkkYJnQ1v35PMFR9urdbn+Jm8lDOl6ZMfQDgYY/SUCd5JJW4nF3Rn35Vkp RyMhsPkhnNiefSgpn0YvhF6Y3scNvX8lJP5wK3GZs2AaopT/84Vn53VhHpF5BefZN+ujuPyb X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:170590 Archived-At: On 2019-10-31 16:32, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > The current implementation basically is a moral equivalent of "rm -f". > It also is biased towards interactive usage, where the return value is > not very important. > > Does it answer your question? Not satisfactorily. Applying the notion of '_moral_ equivalence' to a programming command option strikes me as alien, but as an exercise, the only _moral_ standard that I've come up with for "rm -f" is an immoral standard of inconsiderateness. What I mean is that someone at some time put some sort of block on deleting a file, and you're saying that emacs as its *default* action is to inconsiderately try to do its best to ignore any such block. As an issue in _morality_, it sounds quite inconsiderate and thus presumably undesirable if one's decision-basis is some form of morality. Independent of morality, it's also inconsistent with the default behavior of comparable programming contexts, and thus violates POLA (principle of least astonishment). For example, compare the default action of the written command delete-file with your own expressed basis ... the shell command rm, run interactively from the command line. A better comparison basis would be other forms of lisp. Rabbi Google tells me that both common-lisp and scheme signal an error on failure. The only other lisp I have handy to try is another GNU lisp, guile 2.0.13, which also does not signal an error on a file marked 'chmod -w'. Outside of lisp, python behaves similarly. So that's several POLA points in emacs' favor. =2D- hkp://keys.gnupg.net CA45 09B5 5351 7C11 A9D1 7286 0036 9E45 1595 8BC0