[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#22819: 25.0.91; Don't try to indent region if the buffer is read-onl
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#22819: 25.0.91; Don't try to indent region if the buffer is read-only |
Date: |
Sat, 05 Aug 2017 15:10:22 +0300 |
> From: Kaushal Modi <kaushal.modi@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2017 11:50:59 +0000
> Cc: 22819@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> 1. User: Try indentation
> 2. User: Could take several seconds or few minutes (depending on major mode
> and file size)
> 3. Emacs: "Bummer, couldn't save all that indentation because the buffer is
> read-only".
> 4. User: Make buffer editable. It's not a simple act of chmod. In my case,
> the buffer was read-only because the
> file is part of a centralized version control system (Cliosoft SOS). In
> "checked in" state, the file is just a
> symlink to the cached version in server, and thus read-only. To make it
> editable, I need to "check out" the file.
> That act replaces the symlink link with a physical file copy.
> 5. User: Re-do that several seconds/minutes long indentation.
>
> My commit saves the user from wasting that time in Step 2 above.
>
> The original submission provided no rationale for the change, so it's
> hard to reason about its advantages.
>
> Please consider the above use case.
I see no problem in it, sorry. And why was the user not aware of the
read-only status of the buffer to begin with? How plausible is such a
scenario? Are we trying to change Emacs behavior to cater to a clear
cockpit error?
> >against veteran Emacs behavior regarding read->only text,
> >behavior that is present in several other >commands, and that AFAIR
> >resulted from some past discussions.
>
> This is the only one that provided me this surprise in about a decade of
> Emacs use. Which other commands
> do the text manipulation, and then check the buffer read-only status?
C-w, to name just one.
IOW, a command could have useful side effects that are produced even
if the buffer is read-only and its text cannot be changed, thus
preventing the main effect of the command from happening.
> The flip question is: How common is a workflow, where a buffer is read-only,
> user does indentation, and is fine
> with seeing that error after the fact?
This goes both ways: if it's uncommon enough to be unimportant, then
changing the behavior is not important as well.
- bug#22819: 25.0.91; Don't try to indent region if the buffer is read-only, npostavs, 2017/08/04
- bug#22819: 25.0.91; Don't try to indent region if the buffer is read-only, Kaushal Modi, 2017/08/07
- bug#22819: 25.0.91; Don't try to indent region if the buffer is read-only, Noam Postavsky, 2017/08/07
- bug#22819: 25.0.91; Don't try to indent region if the buffer is read-only, Kaushal Modi, 2017/08/07
- bug#22819: 25.0.91; Don't try to indent region if the buffer is read-only, Noam Postavsky, 2017/08/07
- bug#22819: 25.0.91; Don't try to indent region if the buffer is read-only, Kaushal Modi, 2017/08/08
- bug#22819: 25.0.91; Don't try to indent region if the buffer is read-only, npostavs, 2017/08/08