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: Emacs's handling of line numbers [from bug#5042] Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 00:04:19 +0300 Message-ID: <83wrw5bxkc.fsf@gnu.org> References: <837ho6czb6.fsf@gnu.org> <8339yucbsg.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1271538305 8538 80.91.229.12 (17 Apr 2010 21:05:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:05:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: mark.lillibridge@hp.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 17 23:05:03 2010 connect(): No such file or directory 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O3FCG-0002Zv-0V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:05:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41948 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O3FCF-0003pi-Kp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:04:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O3FCA-0003pb-R0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:04:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46897 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O3FC9-0003pT-Jy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:04:54 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O3FC7-0004B7-Tr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:04:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:34150) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O3FC7-0004Az-Mx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:04:51 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L1100E00G77IB00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 00:04:16 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.69.249]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L1100CB8H73O190@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 00:04:16 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) 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:123820 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:51:17 -0700 > From: Mark Lillibridge > CC: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > The intuition is that these two kinds of restrictions, the first for > creating logical buffers, and the second for temporary limitation of > commands, are fundamentally different and should be distinguished. Why do you think they should be distinguished?