From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Feb 04 14:26:19 2012 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Feb 2012 19:26:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54578 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RtlFa-0000FI-P6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:26:19 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:35340) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RtlFY-0000F5-17 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:26:17 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtlEn-0003pS-N7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:25:30 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]:59348) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtlEn-0003pO-Lc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:25:29 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56624) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtlEj-00056m-A1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:25:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtlEi-0003oc-6b for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:25:25 -0500 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]:51053) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtlEi-0003oS-15 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:25:24 -0500 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id q14JPMWd025273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 19:25:22 GMT Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q14JPLgv029242 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 19:25:21 GMT Received: from abhmt120.oracle.com (abhmt120.oracle.com [141.146.116.72]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q14JPLtx013919 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 13:25:21 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.50.114) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:25:21 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: Subject: 24.0.93; `find-file-noselect': why should it interrogate the user? Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:25:15 -0800 Message-ID: <012A5E800AD44CC090696172BAD6F5A3@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Thread-Index: Aczjcrip6U4nYW8TR72J0ibNbdvPyA== X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090204.4F2D8622.00CC,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.17 X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) I'm evaluating some Lisp code I'm testing. It is non-interactive code. I invoke it using `M-:', which I've bound to `pp-eval-expression'. I first visit a read-only file. Then I change the file (using `dired-do-chmod') to writable. Then I use `M-:' to eval a sexp that does `find-file-noselect'. Even though the code was not invoked interactively (`M-:' should not be counted as interactive here), I got this interactive dialog from `find-file-noselect': "File foobar.toto is writable on disk. Change buffer mode? " When this happened I was quite surprised, and I had almost no idea what was going on. I did not know how to answer the question posed. The question did not even tell me which buffer it proposed changing the mode of. This interrogation does not seem right. When evaluating code this way (and for other non-interacive evaluations) the user might have no idea even that a file is being visited by the code. After all, this is `find-file-noselect', not `find-file'. Why should `find-file-noselect' interact with the user directly using _any_ dialog? I can see why some particular code that _invokes_ `find-file-noselect' might choose to ask the user a question. And I can see why `find-file-noselect' itself might raise an error in some situations. But I do not see why `find-file-noselect' should ever interrogate the user. I do see that `find-file-noselect' has been posing questions to the user since Day One. But I do not see why that is appropriate. I would think that this function should be only for Lisp code to work on a file in a buffer. We could conceivably pass `find-file-noselect' a new optional argument that would indicate whether `find-file-noselect' should question the user to find out more information that might help the function do its job, and if not just punt (e.g. raise an error) if it cannot proceed normally. But why should it systematically do such interactive stuff? When a user gets such a question in the context of `find-file-noselect' being invoked by `find-file' or some other _command_, the questioning is understandable - I've never been shocked by it in such a context. But in this case I was surprised and perplexed. In GNU Emacs 24.0.93.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600) of 2012-01-29 on MARVIN Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600 Configured using: `configure --with-gcc (4.6) --no-opt --cflags -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/libXpm-3.5.8/include -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/libXpm-3.5.8/src -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/libpng-dev_1.4.3-1/include -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/zlib-dev_1.2.5-2/include -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/giflib-4.1.4-1/include -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/jpeg-6b-4/include -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/tiff-3.8.2-1/include -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/gnutls-3.0.9/include --ldflags -LD:/devel/emacs/libs/gnutls-3.0.9/lib' From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 06 09:11:58 2012 Received: (at 10726) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Feb 2012 14:11:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56554 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RuPIU-0003aH-A9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:11:58 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:62446) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RuPIS-0003a1-U9; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:11:57 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAMfeL09MCqD0/2dsb2JhbABDrRCCKIEGgXIBAQQBViMFCws0EhQYDSSID7krjA4SAgIDBgIEAgEEAgIMBgoBAgGEHQEEBBgCCgSDLwSIRJsDhFo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,370,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="161431009" Received: from 76-10-160-244.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.160.244]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 06 Feb 2012 09:11:01 -0500 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id DA7ED58BE3; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 09:11:00 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#10726: 24.0.93; `find-file-noselect': why should it interrogate the user? Message-ID: References: <012A5E800AD44CC090696172BAD6F5A3@us.oracle.com> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:11:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: <012A5E800AD44CC090696172BAD6F5A3@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:25:15 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10726 Cc: 10726@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) severity 10726 wishlist thanks > I do see that `find-file-noselect' has been posing questions to the user > since Day One. But I do not see why that is appropriate. I would think FWIW, I largely agree on the principle. But I think that requires non-trivial changes, including maybe adding a new "really non-interactive" version of find-file-noselect. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 06 10:41:01 2012 Received: (at 10726) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Feb 2012 15:41:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57358 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RuQgf-0007aX-03 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:41:01 -0500 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]:17714) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RuQga-0007aG-SV for 10726@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:40:57 -0500 Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id q16Fdxw7027012 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:39:59 GMT Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q16FdwJi006815 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:39:58 GMT Received: from abhmt111.oracle.com (abhmt111.oracle.com [141.146.116.63]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q16FdvvR006034; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 09:39:58 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.42.177) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:39:57 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Stefan Monnier'" References: <012A5E800AD44CC090696172BAD6F5A3@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#10726: 24.0.93; `find-file-noselect': why should it interrogate the user? Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:39:46 -0800 Message-ID: <16D3AD92400E430D8C4FE9B19FC6DAAA@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Thread-Index: Aczk2Sn3yadVinVDR8ygN9yrBkpe8wADBjAA X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090202.4F2FF44F.010C,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10726 Cc: 10726@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) > > I do see that `find-file-noselect' has been posing > > questions to the user since Day One. But I do not > see why that is appropriate. > > FWIW, I largely agree on the principle. But I think that requires > non-trivial changes, including maybe adding a new "really > non-interactive" version of find-file-noselect. Yes. That's the point of the bug report. It would mean factoring out the truly non-interactive part as the real `find-file-noselect' and using the interrogation part as a wrapper that is called by commands when used interactively. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 28 09:27:36 2016 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Apr 2016 13:27:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51658 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1avlyi-0002MZ-Je for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:27:36 -0400 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:38884) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1avlyg-0002MR-FX for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:27:34 -0400 Received: from cm-84.215.1.64.getinternet.no ([84.215.1.64] helo=mouse) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1avlyd-0004Xv-OE for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:27:33 +0200 Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:27:31 +0200 Message-Id: <87fuu5lv7g.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #10726 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) forcemerge 10726 8180 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 28 13:39:26 2016 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Apr 2016 17:39:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53518 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1avpuQ-0000Fk-8B for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 13:39:26 -0400 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:33320) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1avpuO-0000Fc-OG for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 13:39:25 -0400 Received: from cm-84.215.1.64.getinternet.no ([84.215.1.64] helo=mouse) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1avpuM-0005ns-F8 for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 19:39:24 +0200 Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 19:39:22 +0200 Message-Id: <87r3dp63at.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #13159 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) forcemerge 13159 8180 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun May 01 13:59:11 2016 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 May 2016 17:59:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60947 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1awveB-00061q-Bz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2016 13:59:11 -0400 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:40201) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1awve9-00061h-CK for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2016 13:59:09 -0400 Received: from cm-84.215.1.64.getinternet.no ([84.215.1.64] helo=mouse) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1awve7-0000rg-2R for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2016 19:59:08 +0200 Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 19:59:06 +0200 Message-Id: <87k2jdzml1.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #8180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) tags 8180 wontfix close 8180 From unknown Fri Aug 15 18:09:47 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:24:04 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator