From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Mathias Dahl" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: More visible mini-buffer prompt face Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:53:36 +0100 Message-ID: <7dbe73ed0702261553o25c11990j56ec1c5c0b6579b2@mail.gmail.com> References: <45DF1547.8010404@gmail.com> <7dbe73ed0702240958s6a54086bv1c6d2664571ea6bc@mail.gmail.com> <7dbe73ed0702250301m62343f14vb647e8de4806c772@mail.gmail.com> <7dbe73ed0702260245h15a48208r8c0898982068bb6e@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1172534038 9338 80.91.229.12 (26 Feb 2007 23:53:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:53:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Juanma Barranquero" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 27 00:53:51 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 1HLpfC-0008Kj-On for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:53:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLpfC-0000Cs-Ss for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:53:50 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HLpf1-0000CP-Rx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:53:39 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HLpf0-0000CD-OZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:53:39 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLpf0-0000CA-Ln for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:53:38 -0500 Original-Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1HLpf0-0003B6-4D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:53:38 -0500 Original-Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j3so1038602ugf for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:53:37 -0800 (PST) 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=gUeOeg0QZ7wKkvG+ZHq3ROziNlns9lQn7VPD7EGiLD9XWvQKCZbm7POolxEKNOJXXbBlnvOwgbtMCPSeDeElJCp8UrKAhiJXIiKk6b+5j4LL2rXC15wfFeioym+RwsPllxgs4q07Wx5oq7haerxgqP8ulNet9irat6Y01VWowXs= 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=jMOnoCO5WfIGHiQ203kSaTLoCalUwgdXvDQiUyNw0z3Nl/p+NoP6NKxDTz/n1Qvxxm0VgyoGHFr71MAmC/H61PPGrVJvsmCQzz/bsfgHKxue+4bdGFb0YvhqWrH/vF68X7kEY9JuK6s11mp/XZB92nAR1Gc+oUZdzYVsd0FByfk= Original-Received: by 10.78.150.7 with SMTP id x7mr516882hud.1172534017041; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:53:37 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.78.12.17 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:53:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 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:66887 Archived-At: > Seriously, if a program asks you to type "yes" and press RETURN to > confirm a possibly dangerous action, and you do look for ways to > automatize skipping the question... what more could the program do? I think that part of the problem is that different people have different opinions on what a "dangerous" action is (See the previous thread about image auto detection for a good example... :)), and maybe we sometimes out of laziness take the easy way out and provide a Yes/No prompt, instead of thinking one extra time. (Btw, about the "yes/no" prompt, why do we provide minibuffer history there if we want to make it harder for the user to dismiss the prompt?) I would like to recommend trying out having a "kill key" in Emacs. I have bound a command to F5 that tries to kill the current buffer. If the buffer has no changes it will work, if it has unsaved changes, Emacs will beep, with an error. But, this is important, I get no prompt, so I cannot by mistake type that "yes" + RET (bad habit). Instead I have to stop and think a bit and decide to do a C-x k RET y e s RET (or, save first and then use F5). Yes, slightly annoying the times where I have unsaved changes, but most of the time much nicer as I can kill a buffer with a single keypress. > Do we start an arms race between prompts and users? No, oh please no! We try not to get into such a race at all. > The answer given before ("do not prompt, let him do it and provide > ways to undo") is good, but not always applicable. True, unfortunately. But we should try. > > However, it does not feel like this is the right thread, or time, to > > discuss these, sometimes philosophical, matters... > > Oops. :) Oops x 2 :)