From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Richard M. Stallman" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Patch] Behavior of dired when there already is a dired buffer of the same directory Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:08:58 -0400 Message-ID: References: <6fa54e4e0808311550p7b2524dbg8c903904a09d4474@mail.gmail.com> <87prnohfcw.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <6fa54e4e0808311753j3cef9618k514ef0691b2e6d5d@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1220317862 18708 80.91.229.12 (2 Sep 2008 01:11:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 01:11:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, smeuuh@gmail.com, miles@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 02 03:11:56 2008 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 1KaKQs-0000Bl-JF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 03:11:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36341 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KaKPt-0006Ck-Hl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:10:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KaKPm-00068o-BN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:10:38 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KaKPk-00066u-HM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:10:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55799 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KaKPj-00066b-Rg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:10:35 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:60123) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KaKPj-0002CV-Do for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:10:35 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KaKOA-0004YE-UI; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:08:58 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:06:11 -0400) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:103401 Archived-At: > In general, prompting the user for optional information is a bad idea, > and this is especially true for "asynchronous" events. I agree, but it's also true that we do exactly that for plain files, which is a much more common case, so this same argument would call for a similar change to plain files. Plain files are less likely to change while you have them visited. If they do, continuing to edit the old contents is probably a grave mistake. Precisely because this is a rather grave occurrence, it would be a mistake to revert without telling the user. Asking the user the question of whether to revert is an ideal way to inform the user of the anomaly. Directories often change while you have them in Dired, and that is not an anomaly. Continuing to operate on the Dired buffer is probably ok. Reverting it automatically would be ok, but it is too slow. I think the message now used is just the right behavior.