From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Errors in interactive commands Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 21:15:46 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87livbbta9.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1312312578 13595 80.91.229.12 (2 Aug 2011 19:16:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 19:16:18 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 02 21:16:14 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QoKRq-0002lF-5F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 21:16:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48429 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QoKRp-00021t-J3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:16:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:34994) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QoKRm-0001oJ-2E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:16:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QoKRj-00006O-Sz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:16:09 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:32775) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QoKRj-000061-Mp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:16:07 -0400 Original-Received: by eyx24 with SMTP id 24so122068eyx.19 for ; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 12:16:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=6456hoNqGyEAhkuv1au/QvGeGI6g4lZ7SGwkpjODWtQ=; b=k4FNhEyUDVqoJmeug5UTs/31j0xef53XoCTNqn/MqZF1a9M6gzHuiHQq9rJkxVkJP0 B1VKO7LODy+dnM1xEaJ0WP8kdL2S/d7/7FUPi4FtllVyk5DYP5USvMPCv/NUvOBdCoYX FGH27lFLyt7QhzU3JpeY+Xtnzs/QG+LnTo2XM= Original-Received: by 10.213.6.196 with SMTP id a4mr1416390eba.11.1312312566313; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 12:16:06 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.213.12.205 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 12:15:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87livbbta9.fsf@gmail.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.215.174 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:142740 Archived-At: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 19:46, Antoine Levitt wrote: > What's the policy concerning errors in interactive commands when they > are called from an invalid context? Right now emacs is a bit > inconsistent: C-f at the end of a buffer displays a message, while C-M-f > inside an empty parenthesis pair raises an error. We should decide on a > standard and apply it to every such command (I'm willing to do it.) > > I'm personally in favour of displaying a message, because it makes > editing with toggle-debug-on-error less painful. What do others think? In my opinion interactive commands should never raise an error. Unless of course there is an error - not just a "bad" user behaviour. The user behaviour might instead throw to a catch label that normally just continues the command loop (but can be catched too). We have discussed this before and I have suggested the same thing then. In my opinion it is important. I guess some people might agree, but so far no one has had time to: 1) Suggest the policy (oh, yes, I did). 2) Get agreement. 3) Implement.