[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:13:35 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Juanma Barranquero" <address@hidden> writes:
> On 6/28/07, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
[...]
> I don't remember proposing that. Honestly, what I'm saying wouldn't
> be very affected by using the second alternative above (the
> message/warning one) instead of the error one. I'm not talking about
> interrupting the change (that's irrelevant), but warning the user of
> a likely error.
What error? The problem is an attempt to _change_ the buffer.
Changing something like overwrite-mode does not change the sets of
legitimate and refused operations.
>> For example, I find it completely legitimate to change to overwrite
>> mode, then lock out a file from RCS (which makes it writable), work
>> on it, check it in and then change back from overwrite mode (even
>> though the buffer is already again readonly).
>
> That's an specific example. Good. Are there many more situations in
> which switching to overwrite in a read-only buffer is meaningful and
> more-or-less frequent?
Can you name a single situation where the user gets _any_ benefits
from balking at toggling overwrite-mode? It is not like work is
getting lost or something.
>> I see no point whatsoever to throw an error in that situation.
>
> Fine. Would you feel different if I proposed adding
>
> (when buffer-read-only
> (message "Warning: buffer is read-only"))
>
> at the top of overwrite-mode?
Why would you want to do that? In what situation would the user
derive any benefit from that?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, (continued)
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Andreas Schwab, 2007/06/27
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/27
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, David Kastrup, 2007/06/27
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/27
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, David Kastrup, 2007/06/27
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/27
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, David Kastrup, 2007/06/27
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/27
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/27
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, David Kastrup, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, David Kastrup, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, David Kastrup, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, David Kastrup, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, David Kastrup, 2007/06/28