Re: Inhibiting read-only

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:58:04 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > But the read-only buffer doesn't fit your bill, it requires that you
> > develop a non-trivial infrastructure we currently lack.  Isn't it
> > better to use existing features instead?
> 
> The "existing way" to do this now is to use `before-change-function',
> which is what Customize does.  And it sucks.

That's one way.  The other is using read-only properties.

> >> Having to re-apply properties to ensure that we still are read-only
> >> after inserting text (modulo stickiness) is pretty annoying.
> >
> > I don't see the annoyance.  Can you elaborate the difficulties you
> > envision?
> 
> Re-applying text properties after massaging the buffer (from some
> command) is an annoyance.

I don't see why.

> > But marking the entire buffer read-only and then using text properties
> > to inhibit that for some portions of the text sounds wrong to me.
> > Especially when we already have facilities for making only part of the
> > text read-only.
> 
> Well, we could have facilities for the opposite very easily.  The
> commands already look up the `read-only' text property, so all we have
> to do is add the proper action for a special value, and Bob should be a
> quite close relative soon.

I see you cannot be convinced, so I will shut up.