From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9463: 24.0.50; Errors should not be continuable Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:53:04 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1316555774 28659 80.91.229.12 (20 Sep 2011 21:56:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:56:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 9463@debbugs.gnu.org To: Helmut Eller Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 20 23:56:09 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R68IT-0002zm-52 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:56:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57665 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R68IS-00077e-8A for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:56:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:43581) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R68IN-00075u-I4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:56:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R68GE-00074b-VK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:53:51 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:56043) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R68GE-00074X-To for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:53:50 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R68GP-0002nw-R0 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:54:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:54:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9463 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 9463-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9463.131655559810731 (code B ref 9463); Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:54:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9463) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Sep 2011 21:53:18 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R68Fi-0002n1-NR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:53:18 -0400 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R68Fh-0002mu-Ui for 9463@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:53:18 -0400 Original-Received: from faina.iro.umontreal.ca (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p8KLr35v031338; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:53:03 -0400 Original-Received: by faina.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 8D80AB4170; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:53:04 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Helmut Eller's message of "Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:49:10 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV3986=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.2.0.9286 : core <3986> : streams <683534> : uri <964616> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:54:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:51560 Archived-At: >>> Incidentally, C-M-c does pretty much the same as what c does currently. >> It does something similar but not identical and hence re-introduces some >> of the problems that the change you don't like aimed to solve. > And what exactly is the difference between C-M-c and c? C-M-c does a (throw 'exit), so in the case where we've caught a signal, it prevents the condition-case catchers from doing their job. >> It's important to have a "c" that can "keep going (as much as possible) >> as if nothing happened". > And why was this not important in previous releases? That's not a very constructive line of argument, I'm afraid. Stefan