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 11:04:26 +0200 Message-ID: <86d4zgxxet.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 1183021484 13396 80.91.229.12 (28 Jun 2007 09:04:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:04:44 +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 11:04:42 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 1I3pve-0006X5-35 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:04:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3pvd-00020p-GU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:04:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3pvS-0001v7-Nz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:04:30 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3pvR-0001uO-8o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:04:29 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3pvQ-0001uH-Ro for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:04:29 -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 1I3pvP-0001vL-Th for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:04:28 -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 LAA02345 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:04:25 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 21746 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2007 09:04:26 -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 09:04:26 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id D0BB48F832; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:04:26 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Thu\, 28 Jun 2007 10\:41\:33 +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:73979 Archived-At: "Juanma Barranquero" writes: > On 6/28/07, David Kastrup wrote: > >> WHY?!?!? WHY would it be convenient? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, explain >> in what respect it would help you at all save time, confusion or >> whatever. _Why_ can't you explain what gains you would draw from such >> a message? > > David, I explained many messages ago, and you're refusing to listen: > If I do a command, and the result of this command is irrelevant, I > consider it an error. But the result of the command is _not_ irrelevant since the buffer need not remain read-only. Should we get an error for C-s RET as well since the cursor has not moved? Or whenever if we copy something into the kill ring? "Warning: the copy into the kill ring will remain irrelevant unless you yank it elsewhere". > I want a warning (and please don't explain me again the differences > between warnings and errors: Then why do you come up with the PgUp example all the time which is an _error_, not a warning? It throws a signal which will abort the current operation _unless_ there is a signal handler for it. Even then, the command will not complete but rather execute the signal handler. windows.c:5145: else { if (w->vscroll != 0) /* The first line was only partially visible, make it fully visible. */ w->vscroll = 0; else if (noerror) return; else xsignal0 (Qbeginning_of_buffer); } > I understood it already the first time I used "warning", but I > didn't have the insight to be very precise in my use of Emacs > terminology because I didn't imagine that would turn into that kind > of discussion). So could you come up with an example with similar behavior that gives a _warning_, not an _error_, and which _completes_ the operation? > You're arguing that is not irrelevant because the mode gets changed > and, in some situations, it is even useful. I don't have *any* > useful day to day activity with Emacs where switching to overwrite > in a read-only buffer is useful, so *I* want to get a message > telling me that I'm doing something superfluous. Something _prospectively_ superfluous in _certain_ situations. So please, please, please, give one usage case where such a warning would save you time, data loss, or anything else that would even offset the inconvenience of having the *Message* buffer filling with warnings because I fell asleep on the "Insert" key. I don't have any situation where (setq fdsajglghragh t) would be useful, and I don't want a message telling me. > You're arguing that the PgUp command case is different (and yes, I > understand quite well how it works, thanks), but it is *not*: PgUp > could refuse to work without alerting the user, and nothing would be > different *at all*, But Emacs does _not_ refuse to toggle overwrite mode. Take a look at the mode line: it toggles it quite fine. No warning necessary. It will not accept buffer modifications in either state, yielding an error in either state. > except that the user would take a few seconds to notice what was he > doing wrong. The message in the PgUp case is *just* *to* *say* *the* > *user* *he's* *doing* *something* *not* *useful*. Not useful _yet_. And it does not cause the user to invest any amount of time and work that would go to waste. "Warning: you changed overwrite-mode, and this might mean you want to change the buffer at some point of time. When you will try doing that, it will not work." This is complete nonsense: we can give an _error_ if and when the user changes the buffer, and we could give that warning at almost any point of time. "Warning: you pressed C-u. If you now press a self-inserting character, I still won't change the buffer." A warning is only useful if there are _consequences_ for not heeding the warning. But there _aren't_ in this case. -- David Kastrup