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 10:25:20 +0200 Message-ID: <86lke4xz7z.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <85y7i55a0v.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85myyl5945.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85fy4d56u8.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85bqf0649m.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <86ps3gy02e.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 1183019303 5941 80.91.229.12 (28 Jun 2007 08:28:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:28:23 +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 10:28:21 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 1I3pMQ-0007JE-JR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:28:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3pMP-0002qC-MA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 04:28:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3pJc-0001uL-0J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 04:25:24 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3pJa-0001tD-2t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 04:25:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3pJZ-0001t5-S4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 04:25:21 -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 1I3pJZ-0003gz-8Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 04:25:21 -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 KAA31042 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:25:19 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 7385 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2007 08:25:20 -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 08:25:20 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 135EA8F832; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:25:20 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Thu\, 28 Jun 2007 10\:15\:22 +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:73975 Archived-At: "Juanma Barranquero" writes: > On 6/28/07, David Kastrup wrote: > >> But _why_ wouldn't it be "smart"? The command _is_ executed, it has >> the normal effect (which may become relevant if the buffer-read-only >> state changes), and it does _absolutely_ no harm to the buffer >> contents or anything else. > > Neither does any harm to PgUp at the beginning of a buffer. If the command would get executed, the screen would be blank. Emacs can't execute the command, however. > What is the message for? To alert me that I cannot go up? To alert you that Emacs is _not_ executing the command. > Well, my overwrite message is to alert me that I cannot overwrite > even if I just changed to overwrite, So WHAT? Emacs _does_ change to overwrite mode. It _completes_ the command _properly_. And it _will_ alert you if you actually try inserting or overwriting any characters. > and that I shouldn't expect most normal keys to act differently just > because I changed to overwrite. There are _billions_ of prospective variables you can change or toggle that won't make a difference in particular modes or other stuff. So _WHAT_? _Why_ should Emacs warn you whenever you do something that _might_ not have an effect later unless certain other conditions are changed? Why? How does it help the user? How does it keep harm from him? >> You still have not presented a single case where a notice would be >> of any use at all, even if just to prevent the user from wasting >> time or energy. > > Do you mean that the PgUp case is better because it prevents the > user from endlessly looping doing PgUp without noticing that he's at > the beginning of the buffer (which is also displayed in the mode > line, at least on the default line-number-mode configuration) and > that nothing is moving? Page-Up is _not_ being executed. Emacs tells the user why it can't do his demand. But overwrite-mode _is_ toggled, and the toggling _will_ show an effect when the buffer gets changed to read-write, or when inhibit-read-only gets temporarily enabled, or when you do C-x C-w to a different file or a number of other things. Emacs _executes_ your command, and there are a number of cases where executing it will make a difference. And even if it didn't: I don't want Emacs to alert me whenever it executes a command that may not make a difference. >> I don't get it, and you are not exactly making a convincing, or >> even any case for it. > > I stopped trying to convince you around the "angels on a pin's head" > message, if not earlier. But you are unable to accept that I'm > saying that I would find it convenient: you try to convince me that > I wouldn't. That's ridiculous. 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 Kastrup