From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#5364: 23.1.91; execute-extended-command should do like FFAP Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:12:00 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87aawilq6x.fsf@jidanni.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1263356434 21095 80.91.229.12 (13 Jan 2010 04:20:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:20:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 5364@debbugs.gnu.org To: jidanni@jidanni.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 13 05:20:26 2010 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 1NUuiW-0004bw-8i for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 05:20:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54058 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NUuiW-0003h2-Hw for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:20:24 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NUuiP-0003ev-Aw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:20:17 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NUuiK-0003b5-DL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:20:16 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42505 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NUuiJ-0003ap-Tp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:20:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:39145) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NUuiJ-0005Qc-EU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:20:11 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NUuhL-0004iK-9z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:19:11 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NUubO-0001Fq-FB; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:13:02 -0500 X-Loop: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:13:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Emacs-PR-Message: followup 5364 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 5364-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B5364.12633559294774 (code B ref 5364); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:13:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 5364) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jan 2010 04:12:09 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NUuaW-0001Ew-1p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:12:08 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183] helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NUuaT-0001EL-4w for 5364@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:12:05 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIFABvXTEvO+KPG/2dsb2JhbACBRNRChDAEijE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,266,1262581200"; d="scan'208";a="53650296" Original-Received: from 206-248-163-198.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([206.248.163.198]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP; 12 Jan 2010 23:12:00 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id B4325B464B; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:12:00 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87aawilq6x.fsf@jidanni.org> (jidanni@jidanni.org's message of "Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:00:06 +0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.91 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:13:02 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by mx20.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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: , 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:34251 Archived-At: > Stefan: Yes but adding our way doesn't hinder your way, It merely adds a > tip which you can ignore. An ignorable int is usually OK, but not when it's wrong in 99% of the cases. So before accepting such a change I need to be convinced that it wouldn't bump into false positives too often. > But telling us to use your way, > SM> M-b C-M-SPC M-w followed by M-x C-y RET > is just continuing the stone age punishment for no reason. I'm not sure if such generally applicable, orthogonal solutions qualify as "stone age". > And if we never ran into the need over and over, we wouldn't have > reported it. So there. That's the point I don't understand: how come you bump into it over and over again? I can't think of a situation where this would happen more than once in a blue moon. I use M-x very often and I can't think of a case where I could have used such a hint. So maybe, if you describe the cases where this repeatedly shows up for you, I can come up with a way to reconcile our difference. Stefan