From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:52:03 +0200 Message-ID: References: <86fy4dzdzd.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <86bqf1zbtl.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1182959541 20719 80.91.229.12 (27 Jun 2007 15:52:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:52:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel To: "David Kastrup" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 27 17:52:14 2007 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 1I3ZoQ-0006ES-AK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:52:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3ZoP-0002wC-RK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:52:09 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3ZoM-0002w6-F7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:52:06 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I3ZoL-0002vt-7r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:52:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3ZoL-0002vp-2d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:52:05 -0400 Original-Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.234]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1I3ZoK-0006gn-IR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:52:04 -0400 Original-Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id h26so204443wxd for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:52:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; 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; b=WjFbo7Si72mayquBlFFXNItplGzNt6r9ghIBENeHqU7MbiJOBdMLllKNAeEHmEV/I8qw1oOtvBNlWO9a4ZB6e2UU+Scow1z4ulNkDjsxeDiXbAMnhhq6o9a17AfWWww2LJhwJva85lWEXa2JDQMS8j7GpuCjvC7r7L7TiMl4PwU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=k+CDJSsYLVacg8FAJZEHBmuFScWn3Dbufx6yzElhGSNLYBjmOzk5futuXo/4nZEPDvLyFiJYQhAG+RmHc4VKIM1jS6KIH4O5jdYSAlYjotlWXI+U7sM0by6I4ihnJeuIUqQmgO59RTsZtGJqnViOB34g74ntqwln48PbrWVu+SA= Original-Received: by 10.90.99.20 with SMTP id w20mr652643agb.1182959524036; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:52:04 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.90.87.8 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:52:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <86bqf1zbtl.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 (Google crawlbot) 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:73925 Archived-At: On 6/27/07, David Kastrup wrote: > "Juanma Barranquero" writes: > But some users like to use the kill > commands to copy read-only text into the kill ring, without > actually changing it. Interesting, thanks. > Why? It does not make the act of typing characters more or less > legitimate. Typing text in a read-only buffer won't have much of an effect, unless the keys are bound to some commands other than `self-insert-command'. And if they are, I really doubt these commands use the value of `overwrite-mode' to select among several different behaviors, except in very specialized cases. In most normal uses, activating overwrite-mode in a read-only mode is an error, if a harmless one. But this is not really important, I was just curious. For my own use it *is* an error to set overwrite-mode in a read-only buffer, so I'll defadvice around the issue. Juanma