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: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:55:34 +0200 Message-ID: <86bqf1zbtl.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <86fy4dzdzd.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 1182956165 5640 80.91.229.12 (27 Jun 2007 14:56:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:56:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel To: "Juanma Barranquero" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 27 16:56:04 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 1I3Yvz-0005qe-BA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:55:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3Yvy-0004xm-Vo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:55:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3Yvi-0004qr-O1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:55:38 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3Yvh-0004q6-2y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:55:38 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3Yvg-0004q1-SS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:55:36 -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 1I3Yvg-0002WJ-7B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:55:36 -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 QAA03219 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:55:27 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 30539 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2007 14:55:34 -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 ; 27 Jun 2007 14:55:34 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id DEC3B8F832; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:55:34 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Wed\, 27 Jun 2007 16\:25\:23 +0200") 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:73924 Archived-At: "Juanma Barranquero" writes: > On 6/27/07, David Kastrup wrote: > >> The purpose of not having `*' presumably is to have them affect the >> kill-ring. In order to provide similar behavior upon multiple kills >> as in a non-readonly-buffer, it appears reasonable to move across the >> (non-happening) kill. > > I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean that people routinely does > kill operations on a read-only buffer in order to copy text to the > kill ring? (info "(emacs) Killing") [...] You cannot kill read-only text, since such text does not allow any kind of modification. But some users like to use the kill commands to copy read-only text into the kill ring, without actually changing it. Therefore, the kill commands work specially in a read-only buffer: they move over text, and copy it to the kill ring, without actually deleting it from the buffer. Normally, kill commands beep and display an error message when this happens. But if you set the variable `kill-read-only-ok' to a non-`nil' value, they just print a message in the echo area to explain why the text has not been erased. >> Uh what? Switching to overwrite-mode/binary-overwrite-mode does not >> change the buffer, does it? > > No. But it seems like an error to *interactively* change to > overwrite-mode in a read-only buffer, doesn't it? Why? It does not make the act of typing characters more or less legitimate. -- David Kastrup