From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "David House" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why @#! is not Emacs using the Recycle bin on w32? Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:43:22 +0100 Message-ID: References: <48B7288E.3040503@gmail.com> <48B73AA9.5090900@gnu.org> <48B73D8F.90501@gmail.com> <48B7AC10.6090800@gmail.com> <48B7B08B.6050103@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1220003328 15698 80.91.229.12 (29 Aug 2008 09:48:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:48:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jasonr@gnu.org, "Lennart Borgman \(gmail\)" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Eli Zaretskii" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Aug 29 11:49:42 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KZ0bs-00067m-K9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:49:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46661 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KZ0au-0001Dr-12 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:48:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KZ0Vo-0006QH-Tr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:43:25 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KZ0Vo-0006PK-3W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:43:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38046 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KZ0Vn-0006P3-Pf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:43:23 -0400 Original-Received: from yx-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.44.152]:4158) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KZ0Vn-00080f-6U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:43:23 -0400 Original-Received: by yx-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 34so421006yxf.66 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:43:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=31TO0+Hs1y7PlqfpdvGEJ/ZZgNpmQLdGy+0GpXaXv7I=; b=pkdzSLikd4Zq2yq2tBehr0HkfDu+OKmPPXNaGSrm75+/J0EOvk/qasyWZ6IkrLG7ph cGiqGHc5xtTToAqnfA5j7ml+NBgATOvqKNMrq5Y2eVjZEY57fhNEPHWSPptPlwIb4rxo WnldYVlln7S+TPYG3SSqNSRxoWusb0SnDmrTk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=HRm8OcJjVbZujRK4/xYGj0W9nHAk1+tF1zAusbCYQUnuCOek5uXKxbkV+8J92DYNb7 oSxquehEALOzKvq/WyeLzPMMJQr31uKWjXBUG8Ad1dR1um8Q5txmXv7rJnEQBKA1/R3I g2Y0+55fCa1TdHznhgldVeooqe/X2DiEabNS8= Original-Received: by 10.151.102.16 with SMTP id e16mr3846163ybm.153.1220003002060; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:43:22 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.150.192.3 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:43:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:103157 2008/8/29 Eli Zaretskii : > That's why we have customization in Emacs: because some people's needs > are different from others'. That doesn't negate the need for good defaults, thought. Put it this way -- why shouldn't you have to customise your Emacs to work the way you want, rather than Lennart having to customise his? So far, the only valid argument I've heard in favour of bypassing the Recycle Bin is to conserve disk space. The argument for not bypassing the Recycle Bin is that occasionally users may be surprised that their files have been fully deleted, and may lose important information. It seems to me that the second argument outweighs the first. -- -David