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 00:24:26 +0200 Message-ID: <85myyl5945.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <86fy4dzdzd.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <858xa56rm5.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85y7i55a0v.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 1182983125 15798 80.91.229.12 (27 Jun 2007 22:25:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:25:25 +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 00:25:23 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 1I3fwv-0004se-Em for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:25:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3fwu-0008BP-Vh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:25:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3fwB-0007Um-DH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:24:35 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3fw7-0007Pv-Oi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:24:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3fw7-0007Pc-Bp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:24:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-01.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.41]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1I3fw6-0000s8-Rh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:24:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-01-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-11-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.28]) by mail-in-01.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522CD15B785; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:24:29 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail-in-11.arcor-online.net (mail-in-11.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.51]) by mail-in-01-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D53334709A; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:24:29 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-004-053.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.4.53]) by mail-in-11.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09E1511A4B; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:24:28 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id D1DCA1D03440; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:24:26 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Thu\, 28 Jun 2007 00\:11\:17 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.90.3/3542/Wed Jun 27 18:55:00 2007 on mail-in-11.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:73947 Archived-At: "Juanma Barranquero" writes: > On 6/28/07, David Kastrup wrote: > >> No. `*' does not warn, it throws an error. > > Interactively, what's an error but a warning to the user? A warning causes an action to continue (and usually no beep), an error aborts the current operation (including a keyboard macro) and beeps. >> And a readonly buffer does not get a warning when you try to change >> it, but again throws an error, and nothing happens. Regardless >> whether you try it interactively or not. `*' does not change that: it >> might just throw an error at a more convenient time. > > I'm not sure what are you trying to say here. Well, that's only fair. On my side, I have no clue whatsoever what you are trying to achieve with your proposal that one should not be able to change between overwrite and insertion mode in a readonly buffer. 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). I see no point whatsoever to throw an error in that situation. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum