From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:43:27 +0200 Message-ID: References: <86fy4dzdzd.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <858xa56rm5.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85y7i55a0v.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85myyl5945.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1182984216 18651 80.91.229.12 (27 Jun 2007 22:43:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:43:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel To: "David Kastrup" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 28 00:43:35 2007 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 1I3gEY-00089w-Oh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:43:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3gEY-0007hP-6h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3gEU-0007gq-SM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:30 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3gET-0007ge-G7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:29 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3gET-0007gb-BO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:29 -0400 Original-Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.225]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1I3gES-0004G1-Sm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:29 -0400 Original-Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id h26so330794wxd for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:43:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=om6IOWt3/z3p4lRfF5l30rpkz1YP3e/A7dSlv6T2pvVSE/8rvn2oGbbGemfUfTLfpAhgeYcT7UtniOiosnnJS/MERjwBSXCkGLS/R5eNdxKB/4JtpvPa3Vc313TLNvs0Ynnoqjb/r3XVlUx4vXTe24PvUZFhBOTPxvD/GtIYklQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=H9N1Yp2qfUzBQIZBw//wKsPpDnvFHOhOYXlMIqLv2+LGpeQG5/6Gvc/1AYpy2YW8gsiWU1B3/TEWRacf9yuYqjF1lWNPmx4XpzQoA7BpVbRnH9nY0kFKQQVkR2pp46ei/MovsqYygGme373I1e5Iy8qmwg7RMDmVHLhkg3JJvIY= Original-Received: by 10.90.113.20 with SMTP id l20mr1229509agc.1182984207968; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.90.87.8 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:43:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <85myyl5945.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 (Google crawlbot) 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:73948 Archived-At: On 6/28/07, David Kastrup wrote: > A warning causes an action to continue (and usually no beep), an error > aborts the current operation (including a keyboard macro) and beeps. I *know*. When I said "a warning" I added "IMHO". I wasn't (am not) talking in general, but about overwrite-mode. Or do you mean that it would be very different (defun overwrite-mode (&optional arg) (interactive "*P") ... from (defun overwrite-mode (&optional arg) (interactive "P") (when buffer-read-only (message "Arggg!")) ...) *other* than the fact that the second one really changes the mode (which is not very important for the issue I'm discussing). > Well, that's only fair. It was a literal truth. I didn't understand what you were trying to say. My fault. > On my side, I have no clue whatsoever what > you are trying to achieve with your proposal that one should not be > able to change between overwrite and insertion mode in a readonly > buffer. I don't remember proposing that. Honestly, what I'm saying wouldn't be very affected by using the second alternative above (the message/warning one) instead of the error one. I'm not talking about interrupting the change (that's irrelevant), but warning the user of a likely error. > For example, I find it completely legitimate to change to overwrite > mode, then lock out a file from RCS (which makes it writable), work on > it, check it in and then change back from overwrite mode (even though > the buffer is already again readonly). That's an specific example. Good. Are there many more situations in which switching to overwrite in a read-only buffer is meaningful and more-or-less frequent? > I see no point whatsoever to throw an error in that situation. Fine. Would you feel different if I proposed adding (when buffer-read-only (message "Warning: buffer is read-only")) at the top of overwrite-mode? Juanma