Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes:

>>> This is very nice, but why you don't accept this string in the same format
>>> allowing the user to enter it in the minibuffer (i.e. why you didn't
>>> implement `file-modes-ls-to-number')?
>>
>> Well, I've never seen anyone (or any tool) using that notation to *set*
>> file modes.  Yes, it will allow Emacs to tend to more completeness, but
>> I think Emacs goal lays more in usefulness.
>>
>> Do you have any practical case in which that notation could be more
>> natural?
>
> Wdired mode allows editing such file permissions in the dired buffer
> (when `wdired-allow-to-change-permissions' is non-nil), so it would be

(BTW thanks, looking at this variable allowed me to remove all
references to `dired-chmod-program'.)

> natural to allow entering file permission in the same notation in
> the minibuffer.

I still don't think really so ; the rational for Wdired to permit that
is that the bits are *toggled*, not arbitrary set.

> There already exists a function that converts that notation to the
> number: `wdired-perms-to-number'.

For instance, that function doesn't check for error (it should,
however).  The so-said `advanced' mode is only useful for mass chmod-ing
(using replace-string and like), which is not the purpose of
`read-file-modes'.

I'd really prefer not to have two symbolic notations in here.

-- 
 |   Michaël `Micha' Cadilhac       |  I am very sad for you                 |
 |   http://michael.cadilhac.name   |       that you are running             |
 |   JID/MSN:                       |    Windows Vista.                      |
 `----  michael.cadilhac@gmail.com  |          -- RMS                   -  --'