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: Question about handling file deletion Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:33:19 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87zjud5aej.fsf@rosalinde.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1372257213 27344 80.91.229.3 (26 Jun 2013 14:33:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:33:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stephen Berman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 26 16:33:33 2013 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 1Urqmk-00046O-BG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:33:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51725 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Urqmj-0006yQ-Vd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:33:25 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53448) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Urqmg-0006xI-Ag for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:33:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Urqme-0005ZL-Q3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:33:22 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:30224) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Urqme-0005Yu-KY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:33:20 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EABK/CFFMCppA/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiB4GwS2NDYN9A6R6gV6DE4FK X-IPAS-Result: Av4EABK/CFFMCppA/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiB4GwS2NDYN9A6R6gV6DE4FK X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="17207313" Original-Received: from 76-10-154-64.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.154.64]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 26 Jun 2013 10:33:14 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 82B4862DAA; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:33:19 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87zjud5aej.fsf@rosalinde.fritz.box> (Stephen Berman's message of "Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:22:44 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.182 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:161096 Archived-At: > in the new version of todo-mode.el (see bug#14688). If someone deletes > a todo file using e.g. Dired and then gets an error in Todo mode and > reports it as a bug, is it kosher for me reply "If it hurts, don't do > that. Use todo-delete-file." and close the bug? (That command doesn't There's no rule, but usually it's OK for Emacs to misbehave slightly in such circumstances, tho it's also usually he case that Emacs tries to handle such cases gracefully. IOW it depends: should it be obvious to the user that just "rm"ing the file will lead to an error? E.g. can she still see a reference to the file somewhere else)? If the remaining ("dangling") reference to the lost file is not shown to the user, than Emacs should work harder to try and handle the disappearance seamlessly. Stefan