[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: dired.el
From: |
Luc Teirlinck |
Subject: |
Re: dired.el |
Date: |
Wed, 9 Jun 2004 09:27:57 -0500 (CDT) |
Stefan Monnier wrote:
We seem to miscommunicate: most let-bindings of buffer-read-only (99.9% of
which are to nil) are due to people not knowing that they should bind
inhibit-read-only to t instead.
Sorry, I somehow failed to notice that you were talking about a
different variable. I was still thinking about buffer-read-only, even
though I might have written inhibit-read-only.
dired.el and dired-aux.el bind buffer-read-only to nil countless
times, but there is only one single inhibit-read-only binding in the
two files combined. I have the impression that this is not a result
of "not knowing", but rather a result of the fact that the code is
old, probably from before inhibit-read-only existed.
Prolonged bindings of {buffer,inhibit}-read-only both have their own
dangers. For buffer-read-only it is inappropriate mode line updates,
for inhibit-read-only it is the fact that it applies to all buffers,
including the minibuffer (unless one goes through the trouble of
making a buffer-local binding). So one can not just blindly replace
either one by the other.
In the case of undo, I actually believe that _both_ are safe.
Sincerely,
Luc.
Re: dired.el, Richard Stallman, 2004/06/07