From: Amin Bandali <bandali@gnu.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
Subject: Re: when nothing happens, buffer still marked as modified
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:39:49 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878t14drdm.fsf@aminb.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <83lg548cjz.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:58:56 +0200")
On 2018-12-05 12:58 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> I mean why not follow M-q's example? It marks the buffer modified
> even if re-filling the text arrived at the same text as before the
> command.
I’d noticed that in the past and found it strange. Are there any
strong reasons for keeping the current behaviour vs. only marking
the buffer as modified when re-filling actually results in a
change? Marking the buffer as modified when there was no visual
change seems like a ‘leaky abstraction’.
Though thinking about the wording (“modified”) more precisely, I
suppose the behaviour does technically make sense, but it still
feels somewhat strange / counter-intuitive. I think it would be
nice to have a “difference” indicator for when an action results
in an actual difference compared to before.
Just my 2¢.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-05 13:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-05 2:48 when nothing happens, buffer still marked as modified Emanuel Berg
2018-12-05 6:55 ` Eli Zaretskii
[not found] ` <mailman.5189.1543993692.1284.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2018-12-05 7:23 ` Emanuel Berg
2018-12-05 8:22 ` Eli Zaretskii
[not found] ` <mailman.5196.1543998171.1284.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2018-12-05 10:09 ` Emanuel Berg
2018-12-05 10:58 ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-12-05 13:39 ` Amin Bandali [this message]
2018-12-05 13:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-12-05 15:00 ` Joost Kremers
2018-12-05 17:54 ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-12-05 18:35 ` Michael Heerdegen
[not found] ` <mailman.5239.1544035085.1284.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2018-12-06 0:49 ` Emanuel Berg
2018-12-05 11:58 ` Michael Heerdegen
[not found] ` <mailman.5204.1544007548.1284.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2018-12-06 0:47 ` Emanuel Berg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=878t14drdm.fsf@aminb.org \
--to=bandali@gnu.org \
--cc=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).