[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#8447: Undoing M-x revert-buffer

From: Andreas Röhler
Subject: bug#8447: Undoing M-x revert-buffer
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 18:57:33 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5

Am 29.05.2013 15:27, schrieb Drew Adams:
I just installed into the trunk a patch which should make
revert-buffer undoable.

FWIW, see my comment on this in the help list:

In sum, why?  And why no discussion?  Where was the "bug"?

as it happened, run sometimes into this:
reverting the buffer, which turned out not the right thing - but undo-
history was lost. Consider it a useful change, thanks.

By "turned out not the right thing" I guess you mean that someone used 
`revert-buffer' interactively and by mistake.  And by mistake also _confirmed_ reverting. 
 Yes, it can happen (to anyone).

So define a command `revert-buffer-keeping-undo', and use that interactively 
instead of `revert-buffer'.  Or define a variable (option or internal) 

What you cite is a user-interface issue - i.e., only for interactive use of the 
command.  Such a change, to safeguard against mistaken reverting, is akin to 
removing files to a trash bin instead of deleting them.  But we did not just 
willy nilly change the behavior of the basic function (command) `delete-file' 
when we added support for a recycle/trash bin.  That's not the right approach.

With extra interactive protection as the only reason, this is also akin to some 
users (me, for instance) wanting `C-w' to prompt for confirmation if the region 
is over a certain size (as in wimpy-del.el).  Certainly such safeguard features 
can be useful.

But this change goes way beyond offering users optional extra protection.  
`revert-buffer' is also used in basic code.

The right way to add such protection against mistaken reversion is to create a 
separate command or option, letting users choose to use it or not.  And leave 
the basic `revert-buffer' alone.

FWIW, I agree that such a feature can be useful for reverting interactively.

And why no discussion before making such a change?

Hi Drew,

thanks, okay, you are right opposing it then. Mistook the matter so far.



reply via email to

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