[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: C-x C-q more useful as toggle-read-only

From: Paul D. Smith
Subject: Re: C-x C-q more useful as toggle-read-only
Date: 23 Oct 2000 22:41:49 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.7

%% address@hidden (Mickey Ferguson) writes:

  mf> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote in message

  >> > | > Please change C-x C-q back to doing toggle-read-only.

  >> I don't have strong feelings about this myself, but I'd say it's too
  >> late: "C-x C-q" has a VC meaning since v19.29.  So it's probably well
  >> entrenched by now, as there are generations of users whose only
  >> interface with VC is "C-x C-q".

  mf> Eli, I know how long you've been involved in emacs, especially in
  mf> giving support, so I certainly value your opinion.  But I would
  mf> claim that C-x C-q has been set to toggle-read-only for far longer
  mf> than since 19.29.  The VC people stole it out from under the
  mf> existing default definition.  If they VC folks want their
  mf> variation, they should redefine it in their .emacs files.
  mf> Precedent is important, as you've indicated.  We just have to
  mf> recall where a precedent was first set.

C-xC-q was toggle-read-only before VC came along--that's why VC chose
it: the idea is that to turn a read-only file into a a read-write file
when that file is under SCC requires a checkout operation (in most SC
tools)--so that's what C-xC-q does for those types of files.

According to the ONEWS file in Emacs 20.7, this change was actually made
for the first release of Emacs 19, when VC was introduced; that means
the last version of Emacs to have an un-VC-ified C-xC-q was 18.58.

I believe Eli's point is not that C-xC-q has always been VC-aware, but
rather that it's been that way for so long that it is now the default.
The time to protest the change was seven years ago, back when it was
first made (the first public release of Emacs 19 was on 22 May, 1993).
By now far too many people are far to used to the current behavior to
switch it back purely on "precedent" grounds.

 Paul D. Smith <address@hidden>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]