user has no business toggling overwrite-mode in read-only buffers

user has no business toggling overwrite-mode in read-only buffers

[Dan Jacobson]

In a new crackdown on excessive freedoms, prime minister Moi
recommends toggling overwrite-mode be outlawed in read-only buffers.

In an interview, he was quoted as saying "It just doesn't make sense.
Why should we allow kids to toggle it back and fourth if they can't
possibly use it?  They might get the wrong impression, that they can
write stuff!  Only later will they find out the real deal."
-- 
http://jidanni.org/ Taiwan(04)25854780

Re: user has no business toggling overwrite-mode in read-only buffers

[David Kastrup]

Dan Jacobson <jidanni@dman.ddts.net> writes:

> In a new crackdown on excessive freedoms, prime minister Moi
> recommends toggling overwrite-mode be outlawed in read-only buffers.
> 
> In an interview, he was quoted as saying "It just doesn't make sense.
> Why should we allow kids to toggle it back and fourth if they can't
> possibly use it?  They might get the wrong impression, that they can
> write stuff!  Only later will they find out the real deal."

I beg to disagree.  One might gear up all necessary resources for an
onslaught onto a buffer before one finally disabled read-only-ness.
So I find toggling over-write mode a perfectly sensible operation even
on read-only buffers.

However, to make the case of visual feedback, I would tend to gray
out a "toggle overwrite-mode" menu item, while still having it work
if you ignored the grayout.

Of course, this probably would violate all imaginable user interface
guidelines...

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: user has no business toggling overwrite-mode in read-only buffers

[Alan Mackenzie]

Dan Jacobson <jidanni@dman.ddts.net> wrote on Sun, 20 Apr 2003 03:47:01 +0800:
> In a new crackdown on excessive freedoms, prime minister Moi
> recommends toggling overwrite-mode be outlawed in read-only buffers.

> In an interview, he was quoted as saying "It just doesn't make sense.
> Why should we allow kids to toggle it back and fourth if they can't
> possibly use it?  They might get the wrong impression, that they can
> write stuff!  Only later will they find out the real deal."

Oh, come on, fascist Dan!  There are lots of good reasons (well, at least
two plausible ones) for wanting to change a ROB:

1. You have a source-file which is RO due to some version control system,
but you want to make a private (changed) copy on your own hard disk.  You
C-x C-q it, make the changes, then store it where you want with C-x C-w.

2. Something (something like dired, perhaps?), makes a listing of files
in a buffer, but leaves the buffer RO because "the user has no reason to
edit it".  Problem is, all the filenames start off like this:

/versioncontrolroot/foobar/implementation/software/source/integration/inc

at which point they disappear of the right hand edge of the window.
[Don't laugh.  My contract working on such a project has just expired.
It wasn't fun.]  Few things make me more angry than having continually to
scroll the screen sideways.  When such a directory listing is inflicted
upon me, I first do a little sweet effing and blinding, then make the
buffer writeable.  Then I edit each line, replacing the above prolix
garbage with "...", or whatever.  Then I can read this buffer.  Please
don't make my life any harder.

-- Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").

Re: user has no business toggling overwrite-mode in read-only buffers

[Dan Jacobson]

A> 1. You have a source-file which is RO due to some version control system,
A> but you want to make a private (changed) copy on your own hard disk.  You
A> C-x C-q it, make the changes, then store it where you want with C-x C-w.

You do C-x C-q first.  So it isn't a read-only buffer anymore. I.e.,
um, "like, read the Subject line, Holmes."  Sorry about that.

A> 2. Something (something like dired, perhaps?), makes a listing of files
A> in a buffer, but leaves the buffer RO because "the user has no reason to
A> edit it".

You got me all wrong.  overwrite-mode is that little thing activated
by your pinky when it misses the DEL key and hits the INS key.  It is
good for changing xxxxxxxxxxxx to xxxxxyyyxxxx without hitting
DEL... maybe it should have been called overprint or overstrike mode.

I was just saying the user should have to do vc-toggle-read-only
(^X^Q) before doing (<insert>) overwrite-mode.
-- 
http://jidanni.org/ Taiwan(04)25854780

Re: user has no business toggling overwrite-mode in read-only buffers

[Alan Mackenzie]

Dan Jacobson <jidanni@dman.ddts.net> wrote on Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:32:45 +0800:

> You do C-x C-q first.  So it isn't a read-only buffer anymore. I.e.,
> um, "like, read the Subject line, Holmes."  Sorry about that.

> You got me all wrong.  overwrite-mode is that little thing activated by
> your pinky when it misses the DEL key and hits the INS key.  It is good
> for changing xxxxxxxxxxxx to xxxxxyyyxxxx without hitting DEL... maybe
> it should have been called overprint or overstrike mode.

Ah!  Um, yes, that was indeed what you wrote.  Maybe I should indeed read
the subject line.  Since when was "toggle over" ever a phrasal verb
anyway?  :-(

> I was just saying the user should have to do vc-toggle-read-only
> (^X^Q) before doing (<insert>) overwrite-mode.

Apologies Dan, apologies to everybody else for wasting bandwidth.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").

Re: user has no business toggling overwrite-mode in read-only buffers

[Kevin Rodgers]

Dan Jacobson wrote:

> You got me all wrong.  overwrite-mode is that little thing activated
> by your pinky when it misses the DEL key and hits the INS key.  It is
> good for changing xxxxxxxxxxxx to xxxxxyyyxxxx without hitting
> DEL... maybe it should have been called overprint or overstrike mode.


I used to think that overstrike would have been a better name, but since
Emacs doesn't allow 2 glyphs to be displayed at the same buffer position,
overwrite is more accurate.


> I was just saying the user should have to do vc-toggle-read-only
> (^X^Q) before doing (<insert>) overwrite-mode.

Why?  If the user types "y" or "DEL" in a read-only buffer, it is
exactly the same error whether or not the buffer is in overwrite mode or
not.


-- 
<a href="mailto:&lt;kevin.rodgers&#64;ihs.com&gt;">Kevin Rodgers</a>

Re: user has no business toggling overwrite-mode in read-only buffers

[Kevin Rodgers]

Dan Jacobson wrote:

> In a new crackdown on excessive freedoms, prime minister Moi
> recommends toggling overwrite-mode be outlawed in read-only buffers.
> 
> In an interview, he was quoted as saying "It just doesn't make sense.


It makes complete sense.  overwrite-mode is used to toggle overwrite mode,
meaning that it is also used to turn it off if it is already on.  I assume
it is possible to configure Emacs so that overwrite mode is on by default
(at least for particular modes), and so disabling the overwrite-mode function
would actually prevent the user from being able to turn it off.

-- 
<a href="mailto:&lt;kevin.rodgers&#64;ihs.com&gt;">Kevin Rodgers</a>