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: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:04:48 +0200 Message-ID: <85y7i55a0v.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <86fy4dzdzd.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <858xa56rm5.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1182981955 12222 80.91.229.12 (27 Jun 2007 22:05:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:05:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel To: "Juanma Barranquero" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 28 00:05:52 2007 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 1I3fdI-0000nj-O7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:05:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3fdI-0008JA-9x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:05:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3fdC-0008EE-8R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:04:58 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3fd9-00089z-DT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:04:56 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3fd9-00089b-2e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:04:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-05.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.45]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1I3fd7-0005eR-DA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:04:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-13-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-13-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.30]) by mail-in-05.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE608183792; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:04:51 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail-in-07.arcor-online.net (mail-in-07.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.47]) by mail-in-13-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 969E31B8E58; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:04:51 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-004-053.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.4.53]) by mail-in-07.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572D2292B62; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:04:51 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 2FF491D03440; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:04:49 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Wed\, 27 Jun 2007 23\:30\:39 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.90.3/3542/Wed Jun 27 18:55:00 2007 on mail-in-07.arcor-online.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:73945 Archived-At: "Juanma Barranquero" writes: > On 6/27/07, David Kastrup wrote: >> Would you also prohibit switching _off_ overwrite-mode? If yes, >> why? If no, why? > > Prohibit? (overwrite-mode 1) works regardless of `*', so certainly > code would be able to switch it, if really needed. I wasn't talking > about "prohibiting", but about "warning" (that's what the `*' does > IMHO). No. `*' does not warn, it throws an error. The function is not entered interactively at all. That is the reason that the kill functions that want to affect the kill buffer can't use `*'. And a readonly buffer does not get a warning when you try to change it, but again throws an error, and nothing happens. Regardless whether you try it interactively or not. `*' does not change that: it might just throw an error at a more convenient time. Especially, when otherwise the interactive form or the function will laboriously require some user input/interaction, only to throw an error afterwards. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum