From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:13:35 +0200 Message-ID: <85fy4d56u8.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <86fy4dzdzd.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <858xa56rm5.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85y7i55a0v.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85myyl5945.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1182986032 23440 80.91.229.12 (27 Jun 2007 23:13:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:13:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel To: "Juanma Barranquero" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 28 01:13:49 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 1I3ghn-0005WX-86 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:13:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3ghm-00066u-B5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:13:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3ghj-000663-2L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:13:43 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3ghg-00065r-Vt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:13:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3ghg-00065o-QE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:13:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-03.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.43]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1I3ghg-0000vr-B9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:13:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-02-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-02-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.14]) by mail-in-03.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042ED342693; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:13:39 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail-in-10.arcor-online.net (mail-in-10.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.50]) by mail-in-02-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10201137A1; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:13:38 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-004-053.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.4.53]) by mail-in-10.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD06626D361; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:13:38 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id A5E051D03440; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:13:35 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Thu\, 28 Jun 2007 00\:43\:27 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.90.3/3543/Thu Jun 28 00:24:06 2007 on mail-in-10.arcor-online.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:73949 Archived-At: "Juanma Barranquero" writes: > On 6/28/07, David Kastrup wrote: [...] > I don't remember proposing that. Honestly, what I'm saying wouldn't > be very affected by using the second alternative above (the > message/warning one) instead of the error one. I'm not talking about > interrupting the change (that's irrelevant), but warning the user of > a likely error. What error? The problem is an attempt to _change_ the buffer. Changing something like overwrite-mode does not change the sets of legitimate and refused operations. >> For example, I find it completely legitimate to change to overwrite >> mode, then lock out a file from RCS (which makes it writable), work >> on it, check it in and then change back from overwrite mode (even >> though the buffer is already again readonly). > > That's an specific example. Good. Are there many more situations in > which switching to overwrite in a read-only buffer is meaningful and > more-or-less frequent? Can you name a single situation where the user gets _any_ benefits from balking at toggling overwrite-mode? It is not like work is getting lost or something. >> I see no point whatsoever to throw an error in that situation. > > Fine. Would you feel different if I proposed adding > > (when buffer-read-only > (message "Warning: buffer is read-only")) > > at the top of overwrite-mode? Why would you want to do that? In what situation would the user derive any benefit from that? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum