From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Network security manager Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:22:37 +0200 Message-ID: <83tx1t6dv6.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87oas4h555.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87a93oh180.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83h9xw9zg3.fsf@gnu.org> <83d28k9yb9.fsf@gnu.org> <83ppcj9740.fsf@gnu.org> <83k32r89rd.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416500605 6844 80.91.229.3 (20 Nov 2014 16:23:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:23:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 20 17:23:18 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XrUVc-0002xY-ED for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:23:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36147 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrUVb-0000V5-VX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:23:03 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49531) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrUVJ-0000Np-Dw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:22:50 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrUVE-0007Vf-16 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:22:45 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:60261) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrUVD-0007Te-PV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:22:39 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NFC00J00ILW7200@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:22:38 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NFC00JRWITP7900@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:22:38 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:177880 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 17:23:39 -0500 > > >> It's definitely not dangerous. IIUC he needs this info to decide > >> whether his code can prompt the user or not. Maybe it won't do the > >> right thing in 100% of the cases, but it's clear that if inhibit-quit is > >> non-nil, we're in a context where we shouldn't prompt the user. > > It's not clear to me at all. Some code could set the variable for > > reasons that have no relation to prompts. > > Can you give a scenario where inhibit-quit is non-nil and yet prompting > the user would be OK? Some hypothetical Lisp program that forces users to answer a question? Perhaps also the "emergency exit" feature? In any case, nothing stops some Lisp from doing the above.