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, 18 Apr 2009 23:24:37 -0400 Message-ID: References: <9oocuwfqtf.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> 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 1240112654 13773 80.91.229.12 (19 Apr 2009 03:44:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 03:44:14 +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 Sun Apr 19 05:45:33 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 1LvNyG-00044A-7E for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:45:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37366 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LvNwr-0004GL-D6 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 23:44:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LvNwm-0004EY-ES for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 23:44:00 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LvNwh-0004Bz-Cg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 23:43:59 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40981 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LvNwg-0004Bf-T1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 23:43:54 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:38067) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LvNwg-0003PU-8W for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 23:43:54 -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 n3J3hpJO014121; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:43:52 -0700 Original-Received: (from debbugs@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n3J3U34D010265; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:30:03 -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: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 03:30:03 +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=B2941.12401114808833 (code B ref 2941); Sun, 19 Apr 2009 03:30:03 +0000 Original-Received: (at 2941) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 19 Apr 2009 03:24:40 +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 n3J3Oc8m008827 for <2941@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:24:39 -0700 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1LvNe1-0001aC-93; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 23:24:37 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Glenn Morris on Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:25:31 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 23:43:59 -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:27342 Archived-At: C-u M-x rmail RET foo RET d s is one command that prompts twice (with the patch you proposed). Yes, prompting twice is the specific purpose of that patch. So far, you are the only person who wants a command to prompt twice. If people would generally like that, I won't object. However, you alone don't constitute "people in general". Let's see what others think, if they care.