From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: 4 minor suggestions for files.el Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 07:20:25 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200304142022.h3EKMHRu026814@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200304172139.h3HLdBvK009948@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200304292107.h3TL7Kl9007427@rum.cs.yale.edu> <1052218614.509.109.camel@localhost> <1052310679.6399.34.camel@localhost> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1052480536 21180 80.91.224.249 (9 May 2003 11:42:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 11:42:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Fri May 09 13:42:14 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19E6GT-0005VR-00 for ; Fri, 09 May 2003 13:42:13 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19E6LP-0005On-00 for ; Fri, 09 May 2003 13:47:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 19E697-0001ZP-06 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Fri, 09 May 2003 07:34:37 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 19E5za-00075o-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 May 2003 07:24:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 19E5yQ-0006VZ-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 May 2003 07:23:35 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 19E5vT-0005zR-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 May 2003 07:20:31 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 19E5vN-0001CQ-00; Fri, 09 May 2003 07:20:25 -0400 Original-To: Andre Spiegel In-reply-to: <1052310679.6399.34.camel@localhost> (message from Andre Spiegel on 07 May 2003 14:31:19 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:13782 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:13782 > I presume you would resolve them through editing, so I guess you > could undo those editing operations. Would that be unreasonable? Conflict resolution works by invoking smerge-mode or ediff after the merge operation, automatically. If we follow the undo path, we ought to make sure what the interactions will be with these mechanisms. I think each interaction should be undone as a single unit. This will happen if calls to undo-boundary are at the right places.