Re: One-off history for read-string

[Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se>]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:

> From Emacs' point of view, it's kind of read-only;
> while read-string does write to it, it _doesn't
> matter_ at all. But you can call it what you want.
> I'm not very good at naming things, apparently.

It is not a good policy to name things after
properties that doesn't matter.

Also, most often it is not a good idea to name things
in terms of technology but rather their
purpose/usefulness, but there are more and more
exceptions to that rule the deeper you delve into
technology and this might be one of them.

This is client-server/remote/distributed history.

>> And how will the history be assembled if it is only
>> clients that fetch it and then never add to it?
>
> Who said about never adding? ... Of course it is
> sent to the server, by some _other_ piece of code.

Then it is even more confusing to call it "read only"
as both writing and reading is done.

> and there is _no point_ in keeping the history in
> two places

Still, there is no gain removing it unless it does
any harm.

>> And again, what is the purpose of all this?
>
> To write an actual program which does something
> actually useful, not to discuss endlessly about why
> anyone might want to write such a program.

I don't ask in general, I specifically ask why you
want a server to handle the history?

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573