Revisit file non-literally? (y or n)

Revisit file non-literally? (y or n)

[Dan Jacobson]

Revisit file non-literally? (y or n) 
Please answer y or n.  Revisit file non-literally? (y or n)  [2 times]

Why don't you add a third option, "?", that says what this is all
about, instead of confronting the user with a question he doesn't
understand that he must answer.

Re: Revisit file non-literally? (y or n)

[Miles Bader]

Dan Jacobson <jidanni@jidanni.org> writes:
> Revisit file non-literally? (y or n) 
> Please answer y or n.  Revisit file non-literally? (y or n)  [2 times]
>
> Why don't you add a third option, "?", that says what this is all
> about, instead of confronting the user with a question he doesn't
> understand that he must answer.

I agree this would probably be a great feature, but it seems to be
something for after-the-release.

-Miles
-- 
((lambda (x) (list x x)) (lambda (x) (list x x)))

Re: Revisit file non-literally? (y or n)

[Dan Jacobson]

>>>>> "r" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
r>     Revisit file non-literally? (y or n)
r>     Please answer y or n.  Revisit file non-literally? (y or n)  [2 times]

r> I thought that question would be clear.  If you used find-file-literally,
r> and then you want to find the same file in the normal way, it asks
r> for confirmation before doing so.

r> Can you explain how this isn't clear?  Once I understand,
r> maybe I can think of something to do about it.

Assume the user is in a single window which he cannot escape to check
documentation.  He knows his everyday English, but this is his first
encounter with your use of "literally", so you should offer a "?"
choice which spends a paragraph or two spelling out all the
consequences of y and n.