From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: comint read-only prompt Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:12:43 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <20020820211243.GA28081@gnu.org> References: <200208191540.g7JFemV13663@rum.cs.yale.edu> <1029772679.16562.13.camel@turtle.as.arizona.edu> <200208201721.g7KHLcb09801@wijiji.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1029878210 20826 127.0.0.1 (20 Aug 2002 21:16:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 21:16:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jdsmith@as.arizona.edu, monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu, miles@lsi.nec.co.jp, simon.marshall@misys.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17hGMr-0005Pn-00 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:16:49 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17hGox-0006Vm-00 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:45:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17hGNs-000848-00; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:17:52 -0400 Original-Received: from miles by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 17hGIt-0007y9-00; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:12:43 -0400 Original-To: Richard Stallman Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200208201721.g7KHLcb09801@wijiji.santafe.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Blat: Foop Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:6687 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:6687 On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 11:21:38AM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote: > One feature I wanted was for > older prompts *not* to be read-only. > > It seems rather inconsistent to me to make the newest prompt read-only > and not the other prompts. It's an inconistency that probably doesn't matter to users. The `current' prompt is clearly different than others, and far, far, more likely to be inadvertently modified. Given the annoyance that read-only past prompts could cause, and the fact that they are very unlikely to need protection, I think this split is a good one. -Miles -- P.S. All information contained in the above letter is false, for reasons of military security.