From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard M Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#2941: rmail's new handling of Babyl files is odd Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:27:43 -0400 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: rms@gnu.org, 2941@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1239454349 3124 80.91.229.12 (11 Apr 2009 12:52:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:52:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 2941@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 11 14:53:47 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LsciN-0006Ey-WF for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:53:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55912 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lscgz-0006iA-Fd for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:52:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LscYx-0002hp-Va for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:44:00 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LscYr-0002dL-La for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:43:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39480 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LscYq-0002d3-0D for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:43:52 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:55511) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LscYp-0006nK-CP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:43:51 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (rzlab.ucr.edu [127.0.0.1]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n3BChnNv019229; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 05:43:49 -0700 Original-Received: (from debbugs@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n3BCZ30T016874; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 05:35:03 -0700 X-Loop: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com Resent-From: Richard M Stallman Resent-To: bug-submit-list@donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs Resent-Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:35:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: followup 2941 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 2941-submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B2941.123945287215526 (code B ref 2941); Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:35:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 2941) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 11 Apr 2009 12:27:52 +0000 X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.5 Bayes not run. spammytokens:Tokens not available. hammytokens:Tokens not available. Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [140.186.70.10]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n3BCRi0X015518 for <2941@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 05:27:45 -0700 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1LscJD-0003No-Ia; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:27:43 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Glenn Morris on Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:50:42 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Resent-Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:43:57 -0400 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:27074 Archived-At: > There is no way to ask for confirmation when saving a file. write-file-functions? I have doubts that it gives the right behavior in the case of more than one hook function, etc. It seems wrong to me that now I can end up converting a Babyl file to mbox with no prompting at all. Not so. Any change that causes the buffer to be saved will also prompt you (unless there's a bug and I overlooked some command). > It would be possible to treat changes in "unseen" as minor > and changes in "deleted" as major, etc. You could easily distinguish user-defined labels from attributes. Would not help -- deleted and unseen are both attributes. Or perhaps you should only treat "unseen" as minor. Maybe that would be better. Would you like to try out that behavior? It prompts me when I abort an edit, which is inappropriate. Aborting an edit does not modify the file. That is a bug; aborting the edit should not prompt. Does this fix it? *** rmailedit.el.~1.58.~ 2009-04-10 10:16:48.000000000 -0400 --- rmailedit.el 2009-04-11 07:02:51.000000000 -0400 *************** *** 117,123 **** (defun rmail-cease-edit () "Finish editing message; switch back to Rmail proper." (interactive) ! (rmail-modify-format) (if (rmail-summary-exists) (with-current-buffer rmail-summary-buffer (rmail-summary-enable))) --- 117,124 ---- (defun rmail-cease-edit () "Finish editing message; switch back to Rmail proper." (interactive) ! (if (buffer-modified-p) ! (rmail-modify-format)) (if (rmail-summary-exists) (with-current-buffer rmail-summary-buffer (rmail-summary-enable))) *************** *** 254,259 **** --- 255,261 ---- (widen) (delete-region (point-min) (point-max)) (insert rmail-old-text) + (set-buffer-modified-p nil) (rmail-cease-edit) (rmail-highlight-headers))