From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Short explanation for & in key ! of dired Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:15:19 +0200 Message-ID: <85y74unfy0.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <87hcbkpo0e.fsf@gmail.com> <86y74wzeq1.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <874p7ifonh.fsf@jurta.org> <853an2oupp.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1214378147 19593 80.91.229.12 (25 Jun 2008 07:15:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:15:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juri Linkov , Daniel Clemente , joakim@verona.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Miles Bader Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 25 09:16:32 2008 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 1KBPF1-0005Ex-E9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:16:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46607 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KBPEB-0004zX-Q3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:15:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KBPE7-0004zS-MN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:15:35 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KBPE4-0004wH-6P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:15:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49662 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KBPE4-0004wC-0u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:15:32 -0400 Original-Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:17310) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KBPDy-0006p6-Ou; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:15:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-09.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.49]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KBPDx-0003mD-NE; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:15:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-20-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-20-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.85]) by mail-in-09.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90276302910; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:15:19 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail-in-12.arcor-online.net (mail-in-12.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.52]) by mail-in-20-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81BB31077FD; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:15:19 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-000-169.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.0.169]) by mail-in-12.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE648C464; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:15:19 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 160DA1CD2F4D; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:15:19 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <853an2oupp.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (David Kastrup's message of "Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:10:58 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93/7407/Mon Jun 9 04:21:00 2008 on mail-in-12.arcor-online.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-detected-kernel: by mx20.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:99895 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > If we gain a new command M-&, I would not particularly mind the > current M-! behavior for background commands (I would just likely > never use it). That was less than clear: I meant that I would not mind if M-! retained its current behavior for commands ending in & as long as M-& does not behave the same. > But I definitely would want to have M-& to dissociate the commands it > starts. That would be a new command, yes, not a variation of the old > one. I can live with that. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum