From unknown Sat Jun 21 03:26:25 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#69819: 30.0.50; comint-mode does not always respect the read-only flag Resent-From: Dima Kogan Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:09:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 69819 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 69819@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.171053331525250 (code B ref -1); Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:09:02 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Mar 2024 20:08:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53817 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rlDr1-0006ZC-Db for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:08:35 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:37032) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rlDqw-0006Z0-4f for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:08:33 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rlDqL-0001pW-Cc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:07:53 -0400 Received: from fout4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([103.168.172.147]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rlDqG-0008De-96 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:07:52 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CFA31380086 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:07:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:07:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secretsauce.net; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1710533265; x=1710619665; bh=wdIGikzNW6He4QJcFCVwLo/FateU/Qzn sLrYZSLEpPo=; b=MMytxnp/LYmGNLx0zbi5uR+rRsulm7p8wU2JTQn1dkeIvXOt JCcq7kv0b5Oe3SBMAdecS6q9y1lYqhkeJ0aNUt+nzF35+PdSWzeDZe4HSHBJOCXH 6fQojVjMMR7gpjg8tHZR2rtNJdtlAwXopm4KgyP3bATeAHGQIRPh2LzNFovkj1fa vYYKDGlRV/GGQbfJvs7eIMUK8J7umpLROQxEqsHqGxFqIVWYm23OtBfhJjKbGuXS 9Y1kEKtfD1OUfHrC4QbAtS7Pia1q5gbSZt5t4pyNNFdTvod4Mrbpk7/uQCdclxJY YpyFmS7pOOgozrxsStbVv7tge9M72BOtDfUNlw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1710533265; x=1710619665; bh=wdIGikzNW6He4QJcFCVwLo/FateU/QznsLr YZSLEpPo=; b=XVMWw8B7SEmmQU9PiSdzyzSNhw29asSveCpxM8/gD6S5DAGhKDT AgdjzJoz4h9WavCMVloUuAPwloXXIzbnNIf6pgBATMyHBia7DzN+QzXuzPiZ5p5G DA4T+kvfBMv5tJ0zvWXXhEPeNe1CxgL0GYvSO6bcXuHhk0alkZiftRWk7nW394DS Rcfg+gNn3UiOjrzO+eYjoEfwJ6Ui6sosHI+PGsmAUsBDXBpZrRyCRZLL3vinsNAw SbHtDGb3fTBDBTUmVtmUEds9LW7t9QE79JNMPxSXtj2wGfYCsHb72SoUxYZlXOge nvvFNwKqIwcAVRWflVU5DHEeN2MBs4tNGdg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrjeelgddufedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhvffufffkgggtsehttdertddttd dtnecuhfhrohhmpeffihhmrgcumfhoghgrnhcuoeguihhmrgesshgvtghrvghtshgruhgt vgdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffdvffduhfekfffhieefhfffvddtgfefje evuedvfedujeejudevfedtgeeguedvnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghr rghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepughimhgrsehsvggtrhgvthhsrghutggvrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i3e8042a0:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:07:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Dima Kogan Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:07:40 -0700 Message-ID: <87frwrxnqr.fsf@secretsauce.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=103.168.172.147; envelope-from=dima@secretsauce.net; helo=fout4-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) 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: -2.7 (--) Hi. Here's a recipe: 1. emacs -Q 2. M-x shell 3. Observe that the shell is live. You can run commands, and the inferior process responds 4. C-x C-q Turns on read-only-mode 5. Observe that we now cannot interact with the shell since it's read-only. We can C-x C-q again to make it work again. Before step 6, C-x C-q again, to make it read-only 6. C-d This normally exits the shell. But if we're read-only, it shouldn't do that. I see that it still works, despite being read-only. I'm observing this with all comint-based modes, not just shell-mode. Thanks! From unknown Sat Jun 21 03:26:25 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#69819: 30.0.50; comint-mode does not always respect the read-only flag Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 07:20:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69819 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Dima Kogan Cc: 69819@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 69819-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B69819.17105735761642 (code B ref 69819); Sat, 16 Mar 2024 07:20:01 +0000 Received: (at 69819) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Mar 2024 07:19:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54759 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rlOKO-0000QQ-Hy for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:19:36 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54824) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rlOKK-0000QB-H3 for 69819@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:19:35 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rlOHX-0005HL-N6; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:16:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=6A4+SRfuynfepnqERQzU+ZGVr5bf7+j4SiBrO/GGfLE=; b=JRQ0DT/ZHW9N sASZYoCbwbWl59mM+xTu0EUac8RW/ecwNnHSidiAkwEWVuPzynm7T344VQqWa62cUhbqLvRtGiQ+A USuZrDDFfRmCF1dc48QeeW0l+JcKff6PDw93ylDQzluDdEVwtQKkiHHjEkWPbSMv1VX1ffTzjMzQY 59oKHb47R4ujX/C+n+6M/qaWVxbolBUBh3am014WaxT0jOC0qnH0Gk2sLpOfF4qgr+rt1hX6bl0Us oivH/pswyIGp08/QId9z+/TMlAn/SeUkWU4i79rEkeTBZ8QVaZTCg6CUDRqy/yhNDPUe//k+CaSkW JsmEl3mFrMWjGnFfhp5liQ==; Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:16:37 +0200 Message-Id: <86r0ga7iju.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: <87frwrxnqr.fsf@secretsauce.net> (message from Dima Kogan on Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:07:40 -0700) References: <87frwrxnqr.fsf@secretsauce.net> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Dima Kogan > Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:07:40 -0700 > > Hi. Here's a recipe: > > 1. emacs -Q > > 2. M-x shell > > 3. Observe that the shell is live. You can run commands, and the > inferior process responds > > 4. C-x C-q > > Turns on read-only-mode > > 5. Observe that we now cannot interact with the shell since it's > read-only. We can C-x C-q again to make it work again. Before step 6, > C-x C-q again, to make it read-only > > 6. C-d > > This normally exits the shell. But if we're read-only, it shouldn't > do that. I see that it still works, despite being read-only. Why do you think C-d shouldn't work when the buffer is read-only? > I'm observing this with all comint-based modes, not just shell-mode. It's a feature, AFAICT. But I'm interested in hearing why you thought it was a bug. From unknown Sat Jun 21 03:26:25 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#69819: 30.0.50; comint-mode does not always respect the read-only flag Resent-From: Dima Kogan Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:02:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69819 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: 69819@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 69819-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B69819.171070569819933 (code B ref 69819); Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:02:02 +0000 Received: (at 69819) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Mar 2024 20:01:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38685 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rlwhO-0005BP-7H for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:01:38 -0400 Received: from wfout8-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.151]:48737) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rlwhL-0005B0-Eu for 69819@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:01:36 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4451C000B2; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:00:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:00:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secretsauce.net; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1710705650; x= 1710792050; bh=cqUiIFtRiFRgZlImESWU1CJVO/G0aeG9TrYI8PF6fK4=; b=F 85vP2BLP10F4TJ/L1aa6yTVl5tSYoOqp1tzDuCSxQgpAndn2rkR2E1+tL8TNYPX6 2tOFpx1PIAtJaXs65i+6k/ZxEHpGtoCkxBKKPYjA/zkNciKXgDkA4KCf5yNGsi7P jkdwYT0Vw7gGJRmGlrIFKsdOvKtKQ6uOyxyof3lYilAkSkttNPhMcBl1YsESdDjQ WPle7werSFAVS8GU5Y7jB6E8C+1bKdnUZjoAXskPIpJ1uwcUTkw8Vfx/RLfRW9DX BMV6zwuSqts8FtbEtjiD0YCiPW+Dd7rf35MyIhl8hZl4t1FceGMWTTHhZccTWSpv djQxaN/NE29oFZ9rP7MTA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1710705650; x=1710792050; bh=cqUiIFtRiFRgZlImESWU1CJVO/G0 aeG9TrYI8PF6fK4=; b=OL6S8l14obyvR1ZYGbvp82rp31C+j809z9T3LzV9MLhT uax+6OaQ8CqmqEeVYW6Vlkt1TcfGNFXtCE22JJbcFaiw4KaFOYGjs5zchTMFbfpq HdCXpsoE4bEy/awP/mDxM8TA7a9w7YjQcZVpaLSBHC+lBuXrMGImWDp5HS/PVNh8 QN4gKOFZYXraBCEp1JIOpc32L768XRxErK9/wsdz/2I/p/fNxK70eaWWivqeSHMt Vr5lwNhzgQKSrO0w2pS1oCcDNRyIrkMgx98UuGos+JziPRJewEST8CMSCvOIzjdI MrXYO8ZrIapnFoVxgyYHBO3XB6uqJQaWjKU0NLLadQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrkeehgddutdelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfhgfhffvvefuffgjkfggtgesthdtredttdertdenucfhrhhomhepffhimhgr ucfmohhgrghnuceoughimhgrsehsvggtrhgvthhsrghutggvrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpefgieefheegvdekkedvvedvledvgeelveetvdeujedvjeevudevueelveel veduteenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe guihhmrgesshgvtghrvghtshgruhgtvgdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i3e8042a0:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:00:49 -0400 (EDT) References: <87frwrxnqr.fsf@secretsauce.net> <86r0ga7iju.fsf@gnu.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.10.8; emacs 30.0.50 From: Dima Kogan Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:51:20 -0700 In-reply-to: <86r0ga7iju.fsf@gnu.org> Message-ID: <874jd4y6fq.fsf@secretsauce.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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: -1.7 (-) > Why do you think C-d shouldn't work when the buffer is read-only? > >> I'm observing this with all comint-based modes, not just shell-mode. > > It's a feature, AFAICT. But I'm interested in hearing why you thought > it was a bug. Is there no expectation that a "read-only" mode would block any changes to a buffer? Killing the inferior process breaks that expectation, hence this report. That said, I've been a daily user of shell-mode for something like 25 years, and encountered it for the first time just recently, so fixing this surely isn't very high priority. But still. Thanks! From unknown Sat Jun 21 03:26:25 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#69819: 30.0.50; comint-mode does not always respect the read-only flag Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:45:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69819 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Dima Kogan Cc: 69819@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 69819-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B69819.171070827927266 (code B ref 69819); Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:45:02 +0000 Received: (at 69819) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Mar 2024 20:44:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40248 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rlxN1-00075i-47 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:44:39 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44198) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rlxMy-00075K-9n for 69819@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:44:37 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rlx24-0005dg-IS; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:23:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=5WObbcarbtMZcOCq22AA9K02ufXF8Y1+aoFSF7a9CkI=; b=GCceAT9Ai+00 66f2iri6BvPtHdP71Fv+52OH9ROEXx3/U3vA7jqbHvr+WTYbtdlruIMcInshc0pEXdqLEnFUQZuic JxGLaubQGad1Y4FehYuI0qE6sA0GgJwjdQnDQK1pr1WWsQwDsidZ4ad1RjV2IvryYKTrCZvG7lzC0 fm2g4rmReltaFSoOHXfqA0C/Wg3Nn2dVCP5BrmMqIbxvJd//25JJrcW1MSxUcprhamYXsVS0ujfLn 6PquOE9gy3pOwr4PptiHTUdFgeitTvYdkVXqpiZZqSbiPG4hMIH7EHU5pvd+X5v79d1vOqcgcBqm2 0T/u1y3Mb3cQJujd1Ixn6g==; Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:22:56 +0200 Message-Id: <86v85k4nhb.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: <874jd4y6fq.fsf@secretsauce.net> (message from Dima Kogan on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:51:20 -0700) References: <87frwrxnqr.fsf@secretsauce.net> <86r0ga7iju.fsf@gnu.org> <874jd4y6fq.fsf@secretsauce.net> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Dima Kogan > Cc: 69819@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:51:20 -0700 > > > Why do you think C-d shouldn't work when the buffer is read-only? > > > >> I'm observing this with all comint-based modes, not just shell-mode. > > > > It's a feature, AFAICT. But I'm interested in hearing why you thought > > it was a bug. > > > Is there no expectation that a "read-only" mode would block any changes > to a buffer? Killing the inferior process breaks that expectation, hence > this report. What expectation, exactly? The buffer is not changed; the process is terminated, but that's not the same as changing the process's buffer! From unknown Sat Jun 21 03:26:25 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#69819: 30.0.50; comint-mode does not always respect the read-only flag Resent-From: Dima Kogan Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 05:09:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69819 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: 69819@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 69819-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B69819.171073852611504 (code B ref 69819); Mon, 18 Mar 2024 05:09:02 +0000 Received: (at 69819) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Mar 2024 05:08:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34195 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rm5Es-0002zT-1t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:08:46 -0400 Received: from fhigh2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([103.168.172.153]:52189) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rm5Eq-0002z2-NV for 69819@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:08:45 -0400 Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailfhigh.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A07CA11400E8; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:08:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:08:01 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secretsauce.net; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1710738481; x= 1710824881; bh=U07VN1tISpBb0nV8iz9GUcNvn8rCJsuOf0QDfSEdxqM=; b=L fIFrUCpKxmgXtRw4K1K5sqxUfST1/ykmYPWMylXfCU3sYCWodq47L/8yXbdrrfa/ lAetfZKIFGjFwV4Zo2yw2XHj/bT0ndTY6RzN2zVvguGmSn0iucjih2GBFLf8Xgr7 qdSVXUX8FCEkju0IzSuIt31fV4Vm2/2nE9TeI0otUQE6BLmSKCC6LZ0pkyaLu2Ps dK34/AkOqS7UOwOzAb/AbI3IiMoVj5mFsncF35rwEo/0JU7QhhAA44V8QwVXyXSw sJIZxP5Er82XIsrERHd+WbB3cU+NxNnCigtu62uMfEpiUiDagjTrmUlvHv0iTXaa r+Di+3WEzEIFRtR001l7A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1710738481; x=1710824881; bh=U07VN1tISpBb0nV8iz9GUcNvn8rC JsuOf0QDfSEdxqM=; b=XZkuH55K2OLXoCXYsNCpQeckn1WmNZKBsfL4t8CVqbea gcsAnUd2QBLeenUcYHRTb+K0uUqzPVOudtAxQMo7eOZXrxfH5rWb9s29hLmVXoZ5 uoObVlzUPWtqC/GpeG3OnOvXGN7Io1X5C92AyJVxSqazJw+cMIti6/8JIH6ZbhFq LvhUGRn0Tn9jakaJbMlgcybSqhH87fC95LXG0YRtFx24rajdONWvsyHA7ogkzkdE UTaU2zh+Kl+Fqcg7HLg65b+rZcifby53i4ZhZInRTJVprAcF/wzRPhz/sapRzbwH Z8FTqwS970nY2HaFP3HyjU+1bHFlUIIEjOgetkprvw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrkeeigdektdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpehffgfhvfevufffjgfkgggtsehttdertddtredtnecuhfhrohhmpeffihhmrgcu mfhoghgrnhcuoeguihhmrgesshgvtghrvghtshgruhgtvgdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepgfeifeehgedvkeekvdevvdelvdegleevtedvueejvdejveduveeuleevleev udetnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug himhgrsehsvggtrhgvthhsrghutggvrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i3e8042a0:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:08:00 -0400 (EDT) References: <87frwrxnqr.fsf@secretsauce.net> <86r0ga7iju.fsf@gnu.org> <874jd4y6fq.fsf@secretsauce.net> <86v85k4nhb.fsf@gnu.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.10.8; emacs 30.0.50 From: Dima Kogan Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:57:26 -0700 In-reply-to: <86v85k4nhb.fsf@gnu.org> Message-ID: <87v85kw2j7.fsf@secretsauce.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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: -1.7 (-) > What expectation, exactly? The buffer is not changed; the process is > terminated, but that's not the same as changing the process's buffer! The buffer IS changed, actually: when the inferior process dies, it prints a message into the buffer: Process shell<1> finished But that's a red herring I think: if the inferior process died, but the printing was blocked by the read-only mode, I would still consider that to be a bug. My use case is this. I use shell-mode buffers extensively. Periodically I want to examine the output of some command in a *shell* buffer: compare it against other data, look at it, cut/paste it, whatever. While I'm doing that I don't want to accidentally change anything, so I C-x C-q. Then accidental keystrokes don't end up changing anything. UNLESS that accidental keystroke is C-d (and probably a few others I haven't hit by mistake yet). This use case and expectation seems reasonable to me. Thanks. From unknown Sat Jun 21 03:26:25 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#69819: 30.0.50; comint-mode does not always respect the read-only flag Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:18:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69819 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Dima Kogan Cc: 69819@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 69819-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B69819.171076786814892 (code B ref 69819); Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:18:02 +0000 Received: (at 69819) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Mar 2024 13:17:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52079 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rmCs7-0003s5-LL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:17:48 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58432) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rmCs5-0003rd-Rx for 69819@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:17:46 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rmCrO-0002sx-Ae; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:17:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=bPFOjUKU2xHoki8YPsFCavAr9YRnrEXP6Ok9z43Rl6I=; b=okehRGbpArVr tdholoMXcCE33l6faIXKtB41hVEtJzT4VeKO5o4BYIat7zvLsoYGxjm6hWibDgUETDsofoOJ9AgOI AToE/ZJHDUDiMzXjxzQqOyAu9290jS+f+WUgW5Rk2Ni2rWeCqqLnlx2Edjw0F7CPex5VQB9YJTTaC Ld+DG1mSvSVVkxEncgDVedFI/uyUTZbvxrT0wTKqrqgpE8R+3dmmMLd6dwVQ9FY4eJxQEfOvSRtFi MBKzI8+P6XnQYmhfDG/y3J7zKwm5/hig4g1Qt6aTdkWJs23PCpbzFtv0VDPgZzb1R2J6LKwcKKy10 YQjtaQ9BwayAz7dVzs00qA==; Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:16:49 +0200 Message-Id: <86o7bb4r3y.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: <87v85kw2j7.fsf@secretsauce.net> (message from Dima Kogan on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:57:26 -0700) References: <87frwrxnqr.fsf@secretsauce.net> <86r0ga7iju.fsf@gnu.org> <874jd4y6fq.fsf@secretsauce.net> <86v85k4nhb.fsf@gnu.org> <87v85kw2j7.fsf@secretsauce.net> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Dima Kogan > Cc: 69819@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:57:26 -0700 > > > What expectation, exactly? The buffer is not changed; the process is > > terminated, but that's not the same as changing the process's buffer! > > The buffer IS changed, actually: when the inferior process dies, it > prints a message into the buffer: > > Process shell<1> finished Not relevant: this comes from the process sentinel, which is invoked when the process exits. By that time, the buffer is no long a shell buffer, and the process finished notification is shown to announce the end of the session. > My use case is this. I use shell-mode buffers extensively. Periodically > I want to examine the output of some command in a *shell* buffer: > compare it against other data, look at it, cut/paste it, whatever. While > I'm doing that I don't want to accidentally change anything, so I C-x > C-q. Then accidental keystrokes don't end up changing anything. UNLESS > that accidental keystroke is C-d (and probably a few others I haven't > hit by mistake yet). This use case and expectation seems reasonable to > me. I don't agree that it is reasonable. C-d is a key that is bound to a certain function, not unlike C-f or C-v. You wouldn't expect C-f or C-v not do their job when a buffer is read-only, would you? Then why expect that from C-d? As for your use case: I understand now where you are coming from, but I think that what you want is a missing feature; that it just happens to work with 99% of your keystrokes is sheer luck. What you want is a feature whereby input to the shell is blocked until explicitly unblocked by the user, in which case C-d would be blocked as well. I don't think we have such a feature, so I propose to add it.