From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Giorgos Keramidas Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Creating an empty file Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 04:58:50 +0200 Message-ID: <20070124025849.GA2953@kobe.laptop> References: <86bqkphiyj.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <87odopr8ga.fsf@lrde.org> <87veixu2ep.fsf@vh213602.truman.edu> <861wllheo9.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <87y7ntd5jq.fsf@vh213602.truman.edu> <87r6tlpqwi.fsf@lrde.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1169660044 32564 80.91.229.12 (24 Jan 2007 17:34:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:34:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: belanger@truman.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Micha?l Cadilhac Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 24 18:33:56 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H9m0R-0005v4-Np for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:33:56 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9m0R-0001xG-7L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:33:55 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H9m0F-0001wP-0N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:33:43 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H9m0D-0001w5-3J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:33:42 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9m0C-0001vy-Vg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:33:41 -0500 Original-Received: from igloo.linux.gr ([62.1.205.36]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1H9m0C-00070K-Bd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:33:40 -0500 Original-Received: from kobe.laptop ([194.30.196.125]) (authenticated bits=128) by igloo.linux.gr (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id l0OHPvlD004305 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:26:04 +0200 Original-Received: from kobe.laptop (kobe.laptop [127.0.0.1]) by kobe.laptop (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0OFL5qL003598 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:21:43 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Original-Received: (from keramida@localhost) by kobe.laptop (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l0O2woxd003165; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 04:58:50 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87r6tlpqwi.fsf@lrde.org> X-Hellug-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Hellug-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (cached, score=-3.699, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -2.60, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12 0.50, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 0.20) X-Hellug-MailScanner-From: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr X-detected-kernel: Windows 98 (10) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:65447 Archived-At: On 2007-01-23 18:57, Micha?l Cadilhac wrote: >Jay Belanger writes: >>David Kastrup writes: >>> This would probably also apply for an existing file that has been >>> changed on disk, but not in the Emacs buffer. In this case it might >>> possibly make sense to ask the "revert buffer" question before saving. >>> In the case of a non-existing file, there is nothing to revert to, >>> however. >> >> So are you suggesting that when saving a file whose buffer has not >> been changed, that Emacs should compare it to the disk file anyhow? >> I had always (always=for the last 10 seconds) thought that it didn't >> for efficiency reasons. > > Well, the modification flag has a certain use that should be > preserved. What may be done is to add a var > `new-files-are-already-modified'. Do we really *need* this? The `C-x C-s' command will not save empty, new, unmodified files. The `C-x C-w' command will happily write empty files though...