From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: comint-interrupt-subjob also kills pending input Date: 19 Jun 2002 10:32:13 +0900 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200206141547.g5EFlZf08916@aztec.santafe.edu> <200206180810.g5I8ALJ14851@aztec.santafe.edu> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1024450412 29497 127.0.0.1 (19 Jun 2002 01:33:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 01:33:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jidanni@ms46.hinet.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17KULg-0007fX-00 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 03:33:28 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17KUme-00005i-00 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 04:01:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17KULR-0002uG-00; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 21:33:13 -0400 Original-Received: from tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp ([210.143.35.52]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17KUKc-0002qt-00; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 21:32:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mailgate4.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.197]) by TYO202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.11.6/3.7W01080315) with ESMTP id g5J1WFe11695; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:32:16 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mailsv.nec.co.jp (mailgate51.nec.co.jp [10.7.69.196]) by mailgate4.nec.co.jp (8.11.6/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) with ESMTP id g5J1WFl13736; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:32:15 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp ([10.30.114.133]) by mailsv.nec.co.jp (8.11.6/3.7W-MAILSV-NEC) with ESMTP id g5J1WEh14021; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:32:14 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (mcspd15 [10.30.114.174]) by mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (8.10.2+Sun/3.7Wlsi_mx_6.0) with ESMTP id g5J1WEK11888; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:32:14 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (Postfix, from userid 31295) id E4BA237C8; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:32:13 +0900 (JST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-Reply-To: <200206180810.g5I8ALJ14851@aztec.santafe.edu> Original-Lines: 47 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:4970 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:4970 Richard Stallman writes: > With your change it becomes much more difficult to do that. > > It is trivial -- M-p brings it back. Ah, I didn't realize that. However, like the previous situation with `C-y' yanking back the text, it seems likely that _most_ people won't realize this. It also results in a somewhat inconsistent situation that might confuse users -- the `unsent' input is treated as if it had been sent to the process in every way _except_ that wasn't sent (in particular, being put into the `command ring', and being highlighted in bold like other `input'). Sometimes in fact it is very important to know what has been sent and what hasn't, and this behavior confuses the issue (I guess you can often [but not always] tell by looking for bold text followed by a non-bold `C-c C-c', but again, this is `special knowledge' that a naive user might not pick up on). > Instead of replacing `comint-kill-input' with `comint-skip-input', why > not just have nothing? > > I don't like that. C-c C-c in Emacs is supposed to be like C-c in > an ordinary terminal. People could be painfully surprised if that > fails to discard the input. I think rather they would be pleasantly surprised; this is something that terminals can't do, but emacs can do easily and well. I'm not sure why you think it would cause any pain, since it's completely obvious what's going on (after all, the unsent input floats ahead of any new input and is available for editing), and very easy to delete the input using the normal editing procedures for command lines. This is important, I think -- unlike every other behavior, it doesn't require any special knowledge, you just edit like normal. Personally, I find that it's _usually_ the case that when I hit C-c C-c with unsent input, it's because I forgot to kill a program, and had started to type the next command, and then suddenly realized what was going on, and hit C-c C-c. To me this seems like a common scenario, and it's obviously one in which the assumption should be that the user wants to keep the input. -Miles -- I'd rather be consing.