bug#25303: 24.5; `write-region' enhancement request for MUSTBENEW parameter

bug#25303: 24.5; `write-region' enhancement request for MUSTBENEW parameter

[Drew Adams]

If parameter MUSTBENEW is not `excl' and is non-nil then the user is
prompted to confirm overwriting.  The enhancement would be that if the
value is a string then use that as the confirmation prompt.

The would allow for more specific prompting, such as saying something
more than that the file exists - something that can help the user decide
whether to overwrite.

This is pretty much backward compatible: In existing code it is likely
that few, if any, non-nil and non-`excl' arg values are strings.  And in
the case of any that are, the use of the string as a prompt will make
things obvious to a maintainer, if not immediately to the user.

(This is certainly a lot more backward-compatible than was the change
Emacs made to respect the particular value `excl' (in Emacs 21 or 22).
That broke all existing code that was written to the previous spec that
the non-nil arg meant prompt to CONFIRM, not MUSTBENEW.)


In GNU Emacs 24.5.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
 of 2015-04-11 on LEG570
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --prefix=/c/usr --host=i686-pc-mingw32'

bug#25303: 24.5; `write-region' enhancement request for MUSTBENEW parameter

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> If parameter MUSTBENEW is not `excl' and is non-nil then the user is
> prompted to confirm overwriting.  The enhancement would be that if the
> value is a string then use that as the confirmation prompt.
>
> The would allow for more specific prompting, such as saying something
> more than that the file exists - something that can help the user decide
> whether to overwrite.

I think that does make some sense, but do you have a specific scenario
in mind?  What kind of prompt would help the user more than the standard
prompt here?

> This is pretty much backward compatible: In existing code it is likely
> that few, if any, non-nil and non-`excl' arg values are strings.  And in
> the case of any that are, the use of the string as a prompt will make
> things obvious to a maintainer, if not immediately to the user.

It's a slightly non-compatible change, but I think it sounds unlikely to
be bothersome (as you point out).

Anybody else have an opinion here?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#25303: 24.5; `write-region' enhancement request for MUSTBENEW parameter

[Drew Adams]

> > If parameter MUSTBENEW is not `excl' and is non-nil then the user is
> > prompted to confirm overwriting.  The enhancement would be that if
> > the value is a string then use that as the confirmation prompt.
> >
> > The would allow for more specific prompting, such as saying something
> > more than that the file exists - something that can help the user decide
> > whether to overwrite.
> 
> I think that does make some sense, but do you have a specific scenario
> in mind?  What kind of prompt would help the user more than the
> standard prompt here?

I might have had a specific scenario in mind when
I filed the request 3 years ago, but if so it's
forgotten by now. ;-)  Especially since there's
no real workaround to realize the requested
behavior easily.

> > This is pretty much backward compatible:
> > In existing code it is likely that few,
> > if any, non-nil and non-`excl' arg values
> > are strings.  And in the case of any that are,
> > the use of the string as a prompt will make
> > things obvious to a maintainer, if not
> > immediately to the user.
> 
> It's a slightly non-compatible change, but I think it sounds unlikely
> to be bothersome (as you point out).
> 
> Anybody else have an opinion here?

bug#25303: 24.5; `write-region' enhancement request for MUSTBENEW parameter

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> > If parameter MUSTBENEW is not `excl' and is non-nil then the user is
>> > prompted to confirm overwriting.  The enhancement would be that if
>> > the value is a string then use that as the confirmation prompt.
>> >
>> > The would allow for more specific prompting, such as saying something
>> > more than that the file exists - something that can help the user decide
>> > whether to overwrite.
>> 
>> I think that does make some sense, but do you have a specific scenario
>> in mind?  What kind of prompt would help the user more than the
>> standard prompt here?
>
> I might have had a specific scenario in mind when
> I filed the request 3 years ago, but if so it's
> forgotten by now. ;-)  Especially since there's
> no real workaround to realize the requested
> behavior easily.

OK; closing this bug report.  If somebody has a specific need for this,
they'll open a new bug report.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#25303: 24.5; `write-region' enhancement request for MUSTBENEW parameter

[Drew Adams]

> >> I think that does make some sense, but do you have a specific
> >> scenario in mind?  What kind of prompt would help the user
> >> more than the standard prompt here?
> >
> > I might have had a specific scenario in mind when
> > I filed the request 3 years ago, but if so it's
> > forgotten by now. ;-)  Especially since there's
> > no real workaround to realize the requested
> > behavior easily.
> 
> OK; closing this bug report.  If somebody has a specific need for this,
> they'll open a new bug report.

Why close an enhancement request such as this,
just because, years later, I can't recall a
specific scenario where the enhancement is
_needed_?  Why wouldn't this be a good thing
to have (and at no cost)?

Even if you're not personally convinced of the
usefulness (in spite of your saying that it
makes sense), why not leave it open, for someone
else who might decide to implement it at some
point?

What do we gain by your closing such an enhancement
suggestion?

Suppose that the OP suggesting the enhancement had
not replied to your request for remembrance of a
specific scenario.  Suppose that the OP was no
longer around.  Would that be a reason why the
enhancement is a bad idea?  I don't think so.
(And no such bad-idea reason has been given, BTW.)