From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Network security manager Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:34:14 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87a93oh180.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83h9xw9zg3.fsf@gnu.org> <83d28k9yb9.fsf@gnu.org> <83ppcj9740.fsf@gnu.org> <83k32r89rd.fsf@gnu.org> <83tx1t6dv6.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416526489 15326 80.91.229.3 (20 Nov 2014 23:34:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:34:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 21 00:34:39 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XrbFD-0001LR-6x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 00:34:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37783 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrbFC-0003X4-Q4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:34:34 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57583) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrbF2-0003WO-Ie for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:34:31 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrbEv-0007fj-3D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:34:24 -0500 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:47909) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrbEu-0007fZ-VW; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:34:17 -0500 Original-Received: from ceviche.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id sAKNYE86009011; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:34:15 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id AC60766A3B; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:34:14 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <83tx1t6dv6.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:22:37 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV5131=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9393 : core <5131> : inlines <1551> : streams <1345901> : uri <1835483> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.22 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:177899 Archived-At: >> Can you give a scenario where inhibit-quit is non-nil and yet prompting >> the user would be OK? > Some hypothetical Lisp program that forces users to answer a question? > Perhaps also the "emergency exit" feature? I can come up with hypothetical scenarios of course, but they're all rather contrived and don't apply to Lars's situation where the prompt can't be considered an emergency or that something that deserves to be "forced". Stefan