From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Noam Postavsky Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#10613: Please consider this report again Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:51:57 -0500 Message-ID: <877erf81fm.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87ehum32xg.fsf@sc3d.org> <83606zy01q.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1518659512 29590 195.159.176.226 (15 Feb 2018 01:51:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 01:51:52 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.90 (gnu/linux) Cc: 10613@debbugs.gnu.org, Reuben Thomas To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 15 02:51:47 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1em8ha-0005HK-5Y for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 02:51:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54132 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1em8jc-0002ar-6T for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:53:16 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58581) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1em8jR-0002aH-8w for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:53:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1em8jO-0006TI-56 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:53:05 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:35599) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1em8jN-0006TA-Vn for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:53:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1em8jN-0000BE-NR for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:53:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Noam Postavsky Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 01:53:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10613 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: notabug Original-Received: via spool by 10613-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10613.1518659527625 (code B ref 10613); Thu, 15 Feb 2018 01:53:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10613) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Feb 2018 01:52:07 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43496 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1em8iV-0000A0-FS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:52:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172]:36684) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1em8iT-00009W-Fa for 10613@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:52:05 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id t22so7318756iob.3 for <10613@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:52:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=cWbmgp+2eoLaBuEFWqq5RAJ1frHtcnx0RX2W8yWH4x4=; b=ob5mi8sWB9qikNnn2a2rmhQkwfDQw7WAcniP7jnhNx1Jcp01unXlDPQQ8hvc1FUONn 0Zcbpp9sP+4qigLXkX2tl2aT4UgywxZSnP813h0KesHscq72z/ucOw8YXuu3qtmzHXRw huZMYc36QraWA7HxsSj/FdmGJPENhp2ebjLIiWLnE7RdMj3m+/mfaf13A+41AHZVivjT iBTJ/IbEvpnIn9+IVxOhjYCODkFuuW9pOVIa7+o2m18L0z6QndjmD3d+8SxhTHJz8odu LGNl8RUgmQ6SRf2YZFZrYkJj61XpDKxpoPnHlTilJsV03qaPxUulU8eyhst9Z0hUyCJp KqPg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=cWbmgp+2eoLaBuEFWqq5RAJ1frHtcnx0RX2W8yWH4x4=; b=bx7H7cnXAP3LO4l52gbdLxKYc2qc+22zDMiSc0Y1yr75MXd/pp5NoFbShB9eKL75au s/Cyk/wiwthW5JSXv0GckcKjn6OPvY12WlJeESiO761ry/VR1N1EcOvjDpWEMbStbOeK PUk5PGp+G/2Wph6jxj+kETuI81sk/1S2yl1PwqFyAICxdDSiI1o8vQpmQ3Z3WeKGewfx HGfK4Ztzg8JL8igk2APgzhfo/POYA4VWLPyLPavUrNr1z6lZJrY0hJ5tXEYb+N8h/Gb1 tFxW5li/04JbHZkb5XeyRXF/0zxkDPC9Phq4zdXBmc42/lMF4U5/Y17A5d5nGaN5UDe+ vwSg== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPDDnDhxf758NPqqyxW/WdAeD3B7ffd5rXIRZmo6SB2ixSxgtYYE z4bPLfDI087qg0nlUYOCm7Zaxw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225EtOZz4ns+VTh1X8l5Vd/VcWmUOrsC8XDdMq2IRCDljn08l6NOSX0J5wcyH6eY2Tz1SalWlA== X-Received: by 10.107.79.2 with SMTP id d2mr1615393iob.21.1518659519794; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:51:59 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from zebian (cbl-45-2-119-34.yyz.frontiernetworks.ca. [45.2.119.34]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id v99sm8792517iov.24.2018.02.14.17.51.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:51:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83606zy01q.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:05:06 +0200") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:143300 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Reuben Thomas >> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:19:04 +0000 >> >> But I think the report remains valid: suspending Emacs is not a movement, not an editing command, so why >> should it affect the behaviour of the next kill? >> >> Consider: if I suspend the computer on which I am running Emacs, then it does not affect the behaviour of >> Emacs in any way (or shouldn't!). When I resume, Emacs will behave exactly as if nothing had happened in >> the interim (other than time having passed). >> >> So from Emacs's perspective, why should "suspend-emacs" behave differently? > > There's any number of Emacs commands that are neither movement nor > editing. For example, iconify-frame. > > It might be a useful feature to not interrupt a series of kills across > these commands, but that's not how this feature was programmed: it > specifically looks at the last command, and makes no exceptions. > > So this is not a bug, it's a request for a new feature. IMO, it's not a useful feature, it sounds like quite a bit more complexity both in implementation and usage, for very little benefit.