From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:56:54 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1227274391.618443.2559.nullmailer@null> <1227353165.501338.3377.nullmailer@null> <1227525891.411379.2411.nullmailer@null> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1227543536 28189 80.91.229.12 (24 Nov 2008 16:18:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:18:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: ams@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 24 17:19:58 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 1L4eA6-0000Ao-Ss for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:19:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45421 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L4e8x-00009m-H8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:18:35 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L4do2-0003qi-6T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:56:58 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L4do1-0003q3-CS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:56:57 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46080 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L4do1-0003pt-3E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:56:57 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:29933) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L4dnz-0002Vs-T4; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:56:56 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgYGAHZdKknO+J+z/2dsb2JhbACBbSvOVoJ8gR0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,660,1220241600"; d="scan'208";a="30227226" Original-Received: from 206-248-159-179.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([206.248.159.179]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2008 10:56:55 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 3258C8107; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:56:54 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1227525891.411379.2411.nullmailer@null> (Alfred M. Szmidt's message of "Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:24:51 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:106079 Archived-At: > The current behaviour breaks several tings, I gave several advantages of using `confirm'. I never claimed it's perfect, just that its advantages outweigh (and by a large margin in my experience) its disadvantages, based on frequency. Listing disadvantages doesn't bring much to the discussion unless you can argue that those are frequent. Stefan