From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill Date: 09 Apr 2002 15:05:40 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <5xu1qlkonv.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1018354003 7939 127.0.0.1 (9 Apr 2002 12:06:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 12:06:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , John Wiegley , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16uuOY-00023w-00 for ; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:06:42 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16uudN-0001OZ-00 for ; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:22:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16uuO3-0000c4-00; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 08:06:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16uuMi-0000XE-00; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 08:04:49 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (kfs2.local.filanet.dk [192.168.1.182]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id DEEBA7C047; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 12:04:46 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: Miles Bader In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 19 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.50 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:2481 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:2481 Miles Bader writes: > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > Does it ever make sense to consider read-only as a property of text--any > > text at all? If not, perhaps read-only should not be a text property, > > but an overlay. > > I think many people may prefer the text-property programming interface > anyway. Anyway, yeah, it does make sense -- consider a form: it's > generally thought of as read-only with read/write fields in it. I think using read-only property for this is perfectly valid, but still, if you copy the form (or part of it) to another buffer, I guess it really doesn't make sense to regard it as a form anymore. Another property which I *hate* having copied is the mouse-face property. -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk