[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x C-v considered harmful
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: C-x C-v considered harmful |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:34:51 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.94 (gnu/linux) |
> This did not occur to me. But I notice that typing "C-x C-v d RET"
> fails to require a "[Confirm]" if the value of
> confirm-nonexistent-file-or-buffer is after-completion. Since this is
Oops, indeed, I forgot about this "detail". Thanks for reminding me.
> And it doesn't help at all with the fact that even "C-x k" is skimpy
> in the warning department. Are you rejecting Drew's argument that it is
> really kill-buffer that needs attention (at least when invoked
> interactively)?
I do not oppose the change to kill-buffer, no.
I'm just happy that this thread pointed out the lack of support for
confirm-nonexistent-file-or-buffer in C-x C-v (and did so before the
release).
Stefan
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, (continued)
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, M Jared Finder, 2009/07/02
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Miles Bader, 2009/07/02
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2009/07/03
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Andreas Schwab, 2009/07/03
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Miles Bader, 2009/07/03
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Markus Triska, 2009/07/03
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Stefan Monnier, 2009/07/05
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/05
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Stefan Monnier, 2009/07/11
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/13
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful,
Stefan Monnier <=
Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Stefan Monnier, 2009/07/02