From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#13949: (no subject) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 22:07:33 +0200 Message-ID: <83zitq2s56.fsf@gnu.org> References: <56F191A0.9050803@ro.ru> <83bn664a0t.fsf@gnu.org> <56F197E5.908@ro.ru> <8360we49c7.fsf@gnu.org> <56F1A2B4.8010401@ro.ru> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458677375 19261 80.91.229.3 (22 Mar 2016 20:09:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:09:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 13949@debbugs.gnu.org To: Jaakov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 22 21:09:24 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aiScD-0000t7-6s for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 21:09:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39407 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiScC-00025k-Ic for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:09:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49998) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiSbx-0001jk-SG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:09:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiSbu-0004y9-Mb for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:09:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:35103) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiSbu-0004y2-Jg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:09:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1aiSbu-0002Vw-Fi for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:09:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:09:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 13949 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 13949-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B13949.14586772859604 (code B ref 13949); Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:09:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 13949) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Mar 2016 20:08:05 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60463 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1aiSay-0002Uo-VS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:08:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58135) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1aiSax-0002UE-C6 for 13949@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:08:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiSao-0004VZ-Re for 13949@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:07:58 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:34127) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiSao-0004VR-Ok; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:07:54 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4503 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aiSam-0007nK-CK; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:07:53 -0400 In-reply-to: <56F1A2B4.8010401@ro.ru> (message from Jaakov on Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:53:24 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] 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: 208.118.235.43 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:115365 Archived-At: > Cc: 13949@debbugs.gnu.org > From: Jaakov > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:53:24 +0100 > > >> I think you just didn't get my point. > > > > I'm getting your point, believe me. > > > >> Am I being unclear on the principal difference between > >> (1) _what_ a routine should do and > >> (2) _how_ it should do it? > >> ? > > > > I understand you, I just don't agree. > > Your argument for not agreeing was: > > "the buffer text is changed (at least twice), which turns on the > modified flag." > > If you do understand me, please observe that from the viewpoint of (1) > in the described examples the buffer text is NOT changed, neither once, > nor twice, not at all. > (Some properties may change, but not the buffer text. Also, the user has > no practical way to look at the intermediate computation.) > > Reason: > > In our case, in the view of (1) the term "buffer text is changed" is > defined, somewhat diffusely, as not "the same contents as the > corresponding file on the disk". > > Source: > "The text displayed in the mode line has the following format: > cs:ch-fr buf pos line (major minor) > ... > The next element on the mode line is the string indicated by ch. This > shows two dashes (‘--’) if the buffer displayed in the window has the > same contents as the corresponding file on the disk; i.e., if the buffer > is “unmodified”. If the buffer is modified, it shows two stars (‘**’)." > from > https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Mode-Line.html#Mode-Line > > Therefore, the first part of your argument is invalid. > > Am I being clear? Yes. But you are entirely missing the point. I'm not saying anything about the subject of this report, except this: it's an enhancement request. Why? Because (a) the code does exactly what it was designed to do, not something different; and (b) the effect of what the code does in this case is not a serious problem, like a crash or inability to do something important, it is just a minor annoyance. Therefore, the triage of the bug report as an enhancement request (a.k.a. "wishlist") is correct. Please note that I said nothing at all about whether the code should do something else, or whether the documentation should be corrected to use a different definition of what the "**" indication means. This would be a different argument, and I might even agree with you there. I'm only talking about the severity value, nothing else. OK?