From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C-x C-v considered harmful Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:23:34 -0400 Message-ID: References: <19020.2798.523236.406366@rgr.rgrjr.com> <72597301DECF498C8943373F597732A6@us.oracle.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 1246649050 10808 80.91.229.12 (3 Jul 2009 19:24:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 19:24:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: M Jared Finder Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 03 21:24:03 2009 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 1MMoMN-0006Ki-Ey for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:23:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38494 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MMoMM-0000Ls-06 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:23:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MMoMH-0000Lf-Ah for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:23:41 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MMoMB-0000Fi-SM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:23:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39834 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MMoMB-0000FS-In for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:23:35 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:46002) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MMoMB-00058n-CS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:23:35 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1MMoMA-0003nW-Km; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:23:34 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from M Jared Finder on Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:40:08 -0700) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/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:111989 Archived-At: keystroke savings seems so minor that I can not imagine ever wanting to. Is C-x C-v really so much better than C-x k C-x C-f? The case where it gave an advantage is that you can enter the corrected file name based on the mistaken one, rather than starting from scratch. But that is not much of an advantage nowadays, because you can get the mistaken file name via the minibuffer history. So maybe C-x C-v should be disabled and/or eliminated. But that is the sort of thing for which the maintainers should poll the users, rather than just decide on their own. Miles says Yes, it's actually quite useful in some cases, and I find I use it regularly, typically when I've accidentally visited the wrong file -- it automatically fills in the minibuffer with the old name, so it's usually very quick to correct the name and hit RET. Miles, if you had to type C-x k RET C-x C-f M-p instead of C-x C-v, in those cases, how painful would that be?