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: with-output-to-temp-buffer [Re: reverting CJK input methods] Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 21:20:19 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <20040429.150303.42778779.wl@gnu.org> <200404300142.KAA01027@etlken.m17n.org> <87u0z1puxa.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <200404301326.WAA02744@etlken.m17n.org> <8765bga5tt.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <200405020157.KAA07108@etlken.m17n.org> <200405060505.OAA21188@etlken.m17n.org> <200405061310.WAA22378@etlken.m17n.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1083979445 32404 80.91.224.253 (8 May 2004 01:24:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 01:24:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: juri@jurta.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sat May 08 03:24:00 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BMGZM-0001SP-00 for ; Sat, 08 May 2004 03:24:00 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BMGZL-0006Bp-00 for ; Sat, 08 May 2004 03:23:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BMGXR-00079B-OA for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:22:01 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1BMGWu-0006fE-4M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:21:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1BMGW4-0005FP-7g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:21:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BMGVn-0004t1-Qz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:20:20 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.33) id 1BMGVn-0000xh-3r; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:20:19 -0400 Original-To: Kenichi Handa In-reply-to: <200405061310.WAA22378@etlken.m17n.org> (message from Kenichi Handa on Thu, 6 May 2004 22:10:08 +0900 (JST)) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:22917 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:22917 I fully agree with that general principle. But, for the current case, I'm not sure it is the right thing that erase-buffer signals such an error considering that it removes even the narrowing restriction. I think I partly misunderstood the problem. Is the problem that erase-buffer gets an error when there is read-only text in the buffer? Maybe you're right that it should not get an error for that. However, consider the case of a Customize buffer. That has lots of read-only text, the idea being that the user should not be able to edit it. Should erase-buffer in a Customize buffer leave it empty? The result would be an undesirable confusion. We could respond to that by saying, "So don't do erase-buffer in a Customize buffer." Maybe that's right, but I am not sure. So it seems to me that there are some cases where we want erase-buffer to get rid of read-only text silently, but not all cases. It seems better to change the callers, not change erase-buffer. If we eval this once, (display-message-or-buffer (propertize "abc\n\n" 'read-only t)) That is clearly a bug, but I think the right fix is to change the caller here too.