From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard M Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#2941: rmail's new handling of Babyl files is odd Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:27:53 -0400 Message-ID: References: <9oocuwfqtf.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org, 2941@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1240005057 16974 80.91.229.12 (17 Apr 2009 21:50:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:50:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 2941@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 17 23:52:16 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Luvyn-0000Lv-VW for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:52:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46304 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LuvxO-00083a-KT for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:50:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Luvqu-0002pE-2E for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:44:04 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Luvqm-0002jf-RC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:44:01 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45109 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Luvqm-0002jK-Bu for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:43:56 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:60020) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Luvql-0005VL-Ot for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:43:56 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (rzlab.ucr.edu [127.0.0.1]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n3HLhpxH021803; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:43:52 -0700 Original-Received: (from debbugs@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n3HLeLoA021670; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:40:21 -0700 X-Loop: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com Resent-From: Richard M Stallman Resent-To: bug-submit-list@donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:40:21 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: followup 2941 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 2941-submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B2941.124000389018919 (code B ref 2941); Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:40:21 +0000 Original-Received: (at 2941) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 17 Apr 2009 21:31:30 +0000 X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.5 Bayes not run. spammytokens:Tokens not available. hammytokens:Tokens not available. Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [140.186.70.10]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n3HLVDUa018864 for <2941@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:31:29 -0700 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Lup2n-0001b8-Bl; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:27:53 -0400 In-reply-to: <9oocuwfqtf.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (message from Glenn Morris on Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:31:40 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:44:00 -0400 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:27284 Archived-At: C-u M-x rmail RET foo RET d x y s ; rather than C-x C-s both prompt twice: separately about converting to mbox, then about expunging messages. This seems entirely sensible to me. Remember that s also does expunge. If you give two commands that can query, you may get two quieries. This says nothing about whether one command should query the user twice. I find your argument unpersuasive. If people generally want x to query twice, I won't argue against it, but your pushing hard doesn't constitute people generally.