From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why @#! is not Emacs using the Recycle bin on w32? Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:39:17 +0200 Message-ID: <48B7B5B5.2020807@gmail.com> References: <48B7288E.3040503@gmail.com> <48B7B0BD.9040505@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219999584 6055 80.91.229.12 (29 Aug 2008 08:46:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:46:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs Devel To: David House Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Aug 29 10:47:18 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 1KYzdK-00020W-92 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:47:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52001 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KYzcL-0005kQ-SJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:46:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KYzcD-0005iR-Lq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:45:57 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KYzcB-0005hK-W9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:45:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51546 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KYzcB-0005h3-Gx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:45:55 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.213]:38115) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KYzVt-0003L3-A1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:39:26 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-151-87.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.151.87]:61169 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1KYzVp-0001Iy-8n; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:39:22 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080828-0, 2008-08-28), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.151.87 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1KYzVp-0001Iy-8n. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1KYzVp-0001Iy-8n e8d7f887a1e7a9f3e45fb32ae82cba9e X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) 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:103153 David House wrote: > 2008/8/29 Lennart Borgman (gmail) : >>> But being a sensible user, you have backups, right? >> Please do not try to be smart. > > Well, let's see. You accidentally deleted a file important to you, and > then sent an angry post to the mailing list. I'm suggesting what > happened was at least partially your fault, as you could have just > calmed down, restored from your backups, and gone on with your day. David, please. You are again suggesting that you know better than me in this case. You do not. Of course you are right, but there is nothing new in what you write. And it does not help which I think you do realize. > Note that nothing in the above expresses an opinion as to whether > Emacs should delete using `rem' or by sending files to the Recycle > Bin. To be honest, I somewhat agree with you, I think Emacs' actions > should probably be reversible by default. The "Emacs didn't delete my > secure file" complaint isn't valid, I don't think, because if you're > deleting secure files, `dired-do-delete' as it stands still doesn't > properly delete them. Yes, that is my view too.