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: find-file and backward-kill-word Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:15:28 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <16746.62602.225874.363145@zarniwoop.ms25.local> <200410120059.i9C0x3O16263@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200410121306.i9CD6Eh17567@raven.dms.auburn.edu> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1097633778 21317 80.91.229.6 (13 Oct 2004 02:16:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 02:16:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: reinhard.kotucha@web.de, teirllm@dms.auburn.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 13 04:16:14 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CHYgX-0000S2-00 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:16:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CHYnZ-000252-0j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:23:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CHYn1-0001eR-5F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:22:55 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CHYn0-0001dv-6j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:22:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CHYn0-0001dL-0v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:22:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CHYfp-0005DT-6C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:15:29 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CHYfo-0001Wo-EC; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:15:28 -0400 Original-To: David Kastrup In-reply-to: (message from David Kastrup on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:22:49 +0200) 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: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:28335 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:28335 I don't want complex operations to merrily complete "successfully" after having done a number of incomplete steps. Improving the error message is ok, but not at the cost of dropping the error. I agree. It was done this way on the idea that there's no harm in putting the text in the kill ring before getting the error. If people think that is confusing, we could change it to get the error before altering the kill ring when kill-read-only-ok is nil. But this feature was introduced in 1994, so people are apparently not complaining much. Therefore let's leave it alone.