From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: reverting non-existent file Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 15:58:01 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87lfluijfh.fsf@yandex.com> <83o8qq4bsm.fsf@gnu.org> <87h7wiic2a.fsf@yandex.com> <83imgy49xb.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="84025"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Colin Baxter , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu May 14 21:59:17 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jZK0g-000Ljf-OR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 14 May 2020 21:59:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44150 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jZK0f-0005tJ-Il for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 14 May 2020 15:59:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34562) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jZJza-00052I-K4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 May 2020 15:58:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:34694) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jZJzZ-0007GX-Bf; Thu, 14 May 2020 15:58:05 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C117C4401A0; Thu, 14 May 2020 15:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 48EB6440193; Thu, 14 May 2020 15:58:02 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1589486282; bh=jQZ+P9hSDlLZ6H3/W9Vfu0kEaNCrFhI+iiQtjyZ2Pac=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Fw09mOHm7XT9ZibM2WIXHQaqE3qUPrVTx70+zl5zw4yuq+plWO9VNIzdT6KYRN75v BwAPJ+f0YCIT0kvKGvHVbvwiWFGOgZS/NsDS6U7gp74tVrVupSoNoTi262U6CJFuYB 7Y2T544Qs/GIHKfW88QhxKULXqAJ5pb5xRS5ADQBnGLsYvHw3uscgsuxLOhRfKzQWV Mc6jWQQQWR4IJCkfTLxrVrlOj+RAzGy/A6q64nnCFQROCgDkQ8kvpJOlubPnS1BIaz IaFVK9eELEKRq+to3es9lxDrpyI8Z3BlNUgoDT4uNnbewtgdXQfbpIdYcR1pq8B6D/ n0CL99O9f3b4w== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.3.202]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB4C4120746; Thu, 14 May 2020 15:58:01 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83imgy49xb.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 14 May 2020 22:02:24 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/14 13:41:42 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:250286 Archived-At: >> Not now, thanks. I think I was confused by the response "revert-buffer" >> when I knew I'd yet to save it. And yes, my locale is utf-8. > > Hmm... maybe we should not suggest reverting if the file doesn't > exist? Would that make this situation less confusing? Indeed, I think the confusion was simply introduced by Emacs telling the user to revert, whereas that operation cannot be performed (and is not needed), so silencing the message should take care of the root of the problem. Stefan