11:32 a.m.
Fri, 20 Feb 2009 (17:01 +0900 UTC) Mats Lidell wrote:
>>>>> Stephen wrote:
Aidan Kehoe writes:
>> I think that’s wrong, I think it should create the file; C-x C-f is what I
>> think to do when I want to create a file
Stephen> But I don't much care the other way, either. Just make sure
Stephen> that this only happens on an explicit, interactive find-file.
I guess the implementation would be that the buffer would be marked as
changed after a find file on a file that can't be found. In that case
the only thing, objection, that pops to my mind is that a later
save-some-buffers would semi silently create the file.
But I guess that is what the proposal is all about. If you create a
buffer using find-file you also really want to create the file. Go for
it!
If I were to mistype a directory name within the path to the file, what
would the action be? Now, I am asked if I wish to create the directory.
If I answer "no," then I get a buffer with that filename. It is not
modified, so I can delete the buffer without answering another question.
I would want similar action in a revised C-x-C-f.
--
Dr. Robert Delius Royar Associate Professor of English
Morehead State University Morehead, Kentucky
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
2:51 p.m.
New subject: [Bug: 21.5-b28] C-x C-s immediately after C-x C-f does the wrong thing, I think
robert delius royar wrote:
If I were to mistype a directory name within the path to the file, what
would the action be? Now, I am asked if I wish to create the directory.
If I answer "no," then I get a buffer with that filename. It is not
modified, so I can delete the buffer without answering another question.
I would want similar action in a revised C-x-C-f.
Hi Robert:
I have found that answering No is pretty useless and just hit C-g
and start all over again. I'm wondering if a No answer should have
the same effect as C-g. Does anyone know what was intended by allowing
No to create a buffer without a directory? If you try to save the
buffer, it just complains that the directory does not exist anyways.
Rodney
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3 a.m.
New subject: [Bug: 21.5-b28] C-x C-s immediately after C-x C-f does the wrong thing, I think
Rodney Sparapani writes:
robert delius royar wrote:
>
> If I were to mistype a directory name within the path to the file, what
> would the action be? Now, I am asked if I wish to create the directory.
> If I answer "no," then I get a buffer with that filename. It is not
> modified, so I can delete the buffer without answering another question.
>
> I would want similar action in a revised C-x-C-f.
I agree with this. I actually do get burned by having modiff set in a
different context, of a mail reply-with-yank. If I choose a wide
reply instead of a narrow one, for example, I'd like to be able to do
"C-x k RET R" instead of "C-x k RET yes RET R". (I'm also
currently
futzing with window configuration, so the cursor is often not in the
right place in the summary buffer, and I want to redo on a different
message.)
I wonder if a better solution to this annoyance wouldn't be to
downgrade some of these verbose confirmation sequences to one letter
confirmations.
I have found that answering No is pretty useless and just hit C-g
and start all over again. I'm wondering if a No answer should have
the same effect as C-g. Does anyone know what was intended by allowing
No to create a buffer without a directory?
That's what "no" means in response to "Create the directory?"
Why
have "no" mean "abort" rather than "no"? Use C-g if you
want to start
from scratch. It's shorter, anyway.
This is definitely a candidate for y-or-n-p. Creating directories (or
not) is simply not that hard to recover from, and it's not like the
stupid Windows-induced yes-or-no-p for "Really revert the buffer?"
where M-x revert RET yes RET is burned into my fingertip PROM because
I *always* want to revert; being asked if you want to create is rare
and the answer not foreordained.
If you try to save the buffer, it just complains that the directory
does not exist anyways.
autosave continues to work by falling back to some standard place. I
occasionally use this as a safety net when I'm not sure I actually
have anything to say ... in which case I don't want the directory
created until I'm ready.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
1:45 p.m.
New subject: [Bug: 21.5-b28] C-x C-s immediately after C-x C-f does the wrong thing, I think
Ar an fichiú lá de mí Feabhra, scríobh Rodney Sparapani:
robert delius royar wrote:
> If I were to mistype a directory name within the path to the file, what
> would the action be? Now, I am asked if I wish to create the directory.
> If I answer "no," then I get a buffer with that filename. It is not
> modified, so I can delete the buffer without answering another question.
>
> I would want similar action in a revised C-x-C-f.
Hi Robert:
I have found that answering No is pretty useless and just hit C-g
and start all over again. I'm wondering if a No answer should have
the same effect as C-g.
I think it should.
Does anyone know what was intended by allowing No to create a buffer
without a directory? If you try to save the buffer, it just complains
that the directory does not exist anyways.
It’s just that the original design was bad, as far as I can tell. If the
directory doesn’t exist, you’ve probably just mistyped it; my impression is
that I’ve never got the warning in the context it seems to have been written
for, I have never wanted to create the directory. But then people’s usage
patterns vary, I also never use the meta key, something most emacs people
find odd.
--
¿Dónde estará ahora mi sobrino Yoghurtu Nghe, que tuvo que huir
precipitadamente de la aldea por culpa de la escasez de rinocerontes?
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
5753
days inactive
5754
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Aidan Kehoe -
robert delius royar -
Rodney Sparapani -
Stephen J. Turnbull