Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions

["Juanma Barranquero" <lekktu@gmail.com>]

On 6/28/07, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

> But _why_ wouldn't it be "smart"?  The command _is_ executed, it has
> the normal effect (which may become relevant if the buffer-read-only
> state changes), and it does _absolutely_ no harm to the buffer
> contents or anything else.

Neither does any harm to PgUp at the beginning of a buffer. What is
the message for? To alert me that I cannot go up? Well, my overwrite
message is to alert me that I cannot overwrite even if I just changed
to overwrite, and that I shouldn't expect most normal keys to act
differently just because I changed to overwrite.

> You still have not presented a single case where a notice would be of
> any use at all, even if just to prevent the user from wasting time or
> energy.

Do you mean that the PgUp case is better because it prevents the user
from endlessly looping doing PgUp without noticing that he's at the
beginning of the buffer (which is also displayed in the mode line, at
least on the default line-number-mode configuration) and that nothing
is moving?

> I don't get it, and you are not exactly making a convincing, or even
> any case for it.

I stopped trying to convince you around the "angels on a pin's head"
message, if not earlier. But you are unable to accept that I'm saying
that I would find it convenient: you try to convince me that I
wouldn't. That's ridiculous.

             Juanma