[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 10:25:20 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.51 (gnu/linux) |
"Juanma Barranquero" <address@hidden> writes:
> On 6/28/07, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> But _why_ wouldn't it be "smart"? The command _is_ executed, it has
>> the normal effect (which may become relevant if the buffer-read-only
>> state changes), and it does _absolutely_ no harm to the buffer
>> contents or anything else.
>
> Neither does any harm to PgUp at the beginning of a buffer.
If the command would get executed, the screen would be blank. Emacs
can't execute the command, however.
> What is the message for? To alert me that I cannot go up?
To alert you that Emacs is _not_ executing the command.
> Well, my overwrite message is to alert me that I cannot overwrite
> even if I just changed to overwrite,
So WHAT? Emacs _does_ change to overwrite mode. It _completes_ the
command _properly_. And it _will_ alert you if you actually try
inserting or overwriting any characters.
> and that I shouldn't expect most normal keys to act differently just
> because I changed to overwrite.
There are _billions_ of prospective variables you can change or toggle
that won't make a difference in particular modes or other stuff. So
_WHAT_? _Why_ should Emacs warn you whenever you do something that
_might_ not have an effect later unless certain other conditions are
changed?
Why? How does it help the user? How does it keep harm from him?
>> You still have not presented a single case where a notice would be
>> of any use at all, even if just to prevent the user from wasting
>> time or energy.
>
> Do you mean that the PgUp case is better because it prevents the
> user from endlessly looping doing PgUp without noticing that he's at
> the beginning of the buffer (which is also displayed in the mode
> line, at least on the default line-number-mode configuration) and
> that nothing is moving?
Page-Up is _not_ being executed. Emacs tells the user why it can't do
his demand. But overwrite-mode _is_ toggled, and the toggling _will_
show an effect when the buffer gets changed to read-write, or when
inhibit-read-only gets temporarily enabled, or when you do C-x C-w to
a different file or a number of other things. Emacs _executes_ your
command, and there are a number of cases where executing it will make
a difference. And even if it didn't: I don't want Emacs to alert me
whenever it executes a command that may not make a difference.
>> I don't get it, and you are not exactly making a convincing, or
>> even any case for it.
>
> I stopped trying to convince you around the "angels on a pin's head"
> message, if not earlier. But you are unable to accept that I'm
> saying that I would find it convenient: you try to convince me that
> I wouldn't. That's ridiculous.
WHY?!?!? WHY would it be convenient? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, explain
in what respect it would help you at all save time, confusion or
whatever. _Why_ can't you explain what gains you would draw from such
a message?
--
David Kastrup
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, (continued)
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, David Kastrup, 2007/06/27
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/27
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, David Kastrup, 2007/06/27
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/27
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, David Kastrup, 2007/06/27
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/27
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, David Kastrup, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, David Kastrup, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, David Kastrup, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, David Kastrup, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Andreas Schwab, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Andreas Schwab, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/06/28
- Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions, David Kastrup, 2007/06/28