[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

reply via email to

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