From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#13649: boobytrapped dired-do-async-shell-command question Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 02:49:02 +0200 Organization: JURTA Message-ID: <87sj569u4m.fsf@mail.jurta.org> References: <871ucsjdl1.fsf@jidanni.org> <87liazyzz6.fsf@mail.jurta.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1360372212 24730 80.91.229.3 (9 Feb 2013 01:10:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 01:10:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 13649@debbugs.gnu.org, jidanni@jidanni.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 09 02:10:32 2013 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 1U3yxV-0000xA-Ij for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 02:10:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36211 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U3yx9-0007qC-Pa for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:10:03 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59366) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U3yx4-0007m3-3q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:09:59 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U3yx2-0004vl-Cj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:09:58 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:39552) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U3yx2-0004va-9J for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:09:56 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U3yx7-0002Vo-Tt for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:10:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Juri Linkov Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 01:10:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 13649 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 13649-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B13649.13603721589592 (code B ref 13649); Sat, 09 Feb 2013 01:10:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 13649) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Feb 2013 01:09:18 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45015 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U3ywP-0002Ue-0a for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:09:17 -0500 Original-Received: from ps18281.dreamhost.com ([69.163.218.105]:40930 helo=ps18281.dreamhostps.com) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U3ywK-0002UK-Lp for 13649@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:09:13 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (ps18281.dreamhostps.com [69.163.218.105]) by ps18281.dreamhostps.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FBDC201D3F81D; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:09:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:11:38 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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:70922 Archived-At: >>> A command is running in the default buffer. Use a new buffer? (yes or no) >>> Which is a boobytrapped question, as picking "no" will always end up >>> in failure... >> Ah, to you "no" means "don't use a new buffer"? Yes, this is too ambiguous. >> A better question would be: > >> A command is running in the default buffer. Run in a new buffer? >> (yes or no) > > I think it's got the same problem. I think the question should be more > something like: > > A command is running in the default buffer. Kill it or use a new buffer? > > with C-g being the answer for "don't use a new buffer and don't kill it". Alas, this means there is no more "yes/no" question. Of course, it could be split to two "yes/no" questions like `find-alternate-file' used to do until the recent changes that now asks only one question (yes-or-no-p "Kill and replace the buffer without saving it? ") I see no way to do the same for the async-shell-command default question. There is a separate option in `async-shell-command' that asks that question "A command is running in the default buffer. Kill it? ". If is also possible to combine all other options into one question like: A command is running in the default buffer. What to do? (k/c/r/h) where the key `k' would mean to kill the running process, `c' - create a new buffer, `r' - rename the buffer with the running process, and `h' - help with the explanation of these options.