GNU bug report logs - #68648
30.0.50; read-only-mode-hook's are not executed when buffer-read-only is t

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Björn Bidar <bjorn.bidar <at> thaodan.de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 68648 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, stefankangas <at> gmail.com
Subject: bug#68648: 30.0.50; read-only-mode-hook's are not executed when buffer-read-only is t
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2024 19:58:19 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
>> Cc: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>,  bjorn.bidar <at> thaodan.de,
>>   68648 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2024 09:17:13 -0500
>> 
>> > Stefan & Stefan, any comments or opinions on this issue?  I' debating
>> > whether to do anything (and if so, what) about this, or close this bug
>> > as wontfix.
>> 
>> [ This a bug of my own making, when I decided to replace
>>   `toggle-read-only` with`read-only-mode`.  ]
>> 
>> I'd be in favor of replacing the `(setq buffer-read-only t)` with
>> `(read-only-mode 1)`, but it will require other changes: since calling
>> `read-only-mode` will handle `view-read-only`, it might make for a nice
>> simplification, but since the code is fairly complex over there, it
>> might also make things worse.
>
> I agree that it would be nice to clean this up, but since it isn't
> easy (which I, of course, noticed as well), I'm not sure it is worth
> our while, given that the problem is really minor.  Thus my doubts and
> my question.

I think trying to fix the problem if it so minor can take time.
However closing it as won't is not a good idea because of the ambiguity
of semantics here. It's easy to misunderstanding if you don't know.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.