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: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:10:52 +0200 Message-ID: <83y4r53reb.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a93oh180.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83h9xw9zg3.fsf@gnu.org> <83d28k9yb9.fsf@gnu.org> <83ppcj9740.fsf@gnu.org> <83k32r89rd.fsf@gnu.org> <83tx1t6dv6.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416557788 20474 80.91.229.3 (21 Nov 2014 08:16:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:16:28 +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 Fri Nov 21 09:16:21 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 1XrjO7-0005kG-Mz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:16:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39064 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrjO7-0003Y8-88 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 03:16:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56068) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrjNo-0003Fv-2Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 03:16:05 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrjNi-0001eg-MQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 03:16:00 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout24.012.net.il ([80.179.55.180]:46505) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrjNi-0001bT-49 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 03:15:54 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout24.012.net.il by mtaout24.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NFD00A00Q8TEZ00@mtaout24.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:03:14 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout24.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NFD0000PQDEW190@mtaout24.012.net.il>; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:03:14 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.180 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:177916 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:34:14 -0500 > > >> 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? > > I can come up with hypothetical scenarios of course, but they're all > rather contrived and don't apply to Lars's situation where the prompt > can't be considered an emergency or that something that deserves to be > "forced". But you were suggesting that as a general principle, not as solution to that particular problem alone? Your question about "a scenario" also sounded as something rather general. And that is how I understood it and replied. As for Lars's situation, there is a much simpler solution to that, which I already pointed out earlier in this thread. It is also much cleaner, IMO.