From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#13949: 24.4.1; `fill-paragraph' should not always put the buffer as modified Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 19:50:57 +0300 Message-ID: <8337rbzwy6.fsf@gnu.org> References: <56F12360.5030301@ro.ru> <83y49a4hga.fsf@gnu.org> <56F1837D.4060300@ro.ru> <83io0e4b5r.fsf@gnu.org> <56F19203.5040501@ro.ru> <87a8lkd2bc.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83lh54ynol.fsf@gnu.org> <87io08aqhr.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83bn5zzzd3.fsf@gnu.org> <8737rbc3e7.fsf@wanadoo.es> <837fgnzyr1.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3evand5.fsf@wanadoo.es> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1459097542 30122 80.91.229.3 (27 Mar 2016 16:52:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 16:52:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 13949@debbugs.gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=93scar?= Fuentes Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 27 18:52:12 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1akDv7-0007vR-K4 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 18:52:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36711 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1akDv6-0000fe-Kd for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:52:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48186) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1akDv3-0000fN-8y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:52:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1akDv0-0007up-1x for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:52:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:43229) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1akDuz-0007ul-Ug for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:52:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1akDuz-0007lc-Pz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:52:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 16:52:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 13949 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 13949-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B13949.145909748929816 (code B ref 13949); Sun, 27 Mar 2016 16:52:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 13949) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Mar 2016 16:51:29 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40356 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1akDuT-0007kp-5c for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:51:29 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57159) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1akDuR-0007ke-Up for 13949@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:51:28 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1akDuJ-0007lz-NH for 13949@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:51:22 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:58048) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1akDuJ-0007lv-Jl; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:51:19 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3399 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1akDuJ-0004Fv-03; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:51:19 -0400 In-reply-to: <87r3evand5.fsf@wanadoo.es> (message from =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=93scar?= Fuentes on Sun, 27 Mar 2016 18:37:10 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:115593 Archived-At: > From: Óscar Fuentes > Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 18:37:10 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> Again, the question nobody dares to answer: is there a legit case where > >> the user benefits from marking the buffer as modified after applying or > >> changing text properties? > >> > >> >From the lack of response so far, I guess that the answer is "no". > > > > This is the tail wagging the dog: we are not going to overturn a > > long-standing way Emacs works with text properties for the sake of a > > minor feature. > > "minor" is your judgement. You could try making a case for it not being minor, maybe you will be able to convince. For now, I don't see how it could be anything but minor, or else we would have changed it long ago. > And so far there is zero evidence that this change could cause > undesired effects. That's irrelevant. It would be irresponsible for us to change such basic aspects of Emacs operation at this point in Emacs history. We have been burnt with much less significant backward-incompatible changes. > > If you really want this feature to be accepted, > > Sorry Eli, but as much as I appreciate your opinions, I'm not submitting > the feature for *your* approval. You are not the only one that can > approve (or reject) the patch (once we have one.) I'm not the only one, but I'm one of those you need to convince. > > please find a way of doing that without any such notable effects, i.e. > > count changes in the text properties, if any, with the text changes. > > You are decided to block a solution for this issue, just because. Got > it. That's a nasty, unfair way of putting things, and you know it.