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 16:12:08 +0200 Message-ID: <86abukw4lj.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <85myyl5945.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85fy4d56u8.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85bqf0649m.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <86ps3gy02e.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <86lke4xz7z.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1183039939 14130 80.91.229.12 (28 Jun 2007 14:12:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:12:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juanma Barranquero , emacs-devel To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 28 16:12:16 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 1I3ujH-0000j4-5f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:12:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3ujG-0005qJ-H4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:12:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3ujD-0005q7-S5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:12:11 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3ujC-0005pj-H1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:12:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3ujC-0005pg-Ay for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:12:10 -0400 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1I3ujB-0003RB-T6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:12:10 -0400 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (dslnet.212-29-44.ip210.dokom.de [212.29.44.210] (may be forged)) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12953 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:12:01 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 6857 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2007 14:12:08 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 28 Jun 2007 14:12:08 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 14AF68F832; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:12:08 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Thu\, 28 Jun 2007 10\:03\:50 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.51 (gnu/linux) 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:73996 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> If I do a command, and the result of this command is irrelevant, I >> consider it an error. > > The result is not irrelevant because you may do C-x C-q afterwards. > But maybe a little warning reminding the user that the buffer is not yet > writable could be added. It doesn't seem tremendously useful, tho: she'll > figure it out soon enough. But the result will be the same whether or not overwrite-mode is active. So there is no sense in connecting the warning with overwrite-mode. And I don't see _any_ usefulness for this warning since we'll get an error, anyway, once the readonly buffer is tried to be written, without affecting the buffer. Of course, if the user has made a definition (defadvice beep (after wwiii) (launch-missiles)) he will be happy about any such warning before actually committing an error. But other than that, Emacs' reaction to writing over readonly text is perfectly harmless, and there is no reason to _warn_ people that an error _might_ occur given certain behavior. We also don't warn people one screen _before_ reaching the top of the buffer "Further pressing of PgUp might lead to an error. Be careful now". -- David Kastrup