[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x C-v considered harmful
From: |
Markus Triska |
Subject: |
Re: C-x C-v considered harmful |
Date: |
Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:55:03 +0200 |
Kevin Rodgers <address@hidden> writes:
> 5. Make find-alternate-file use a yes-or-no-p confirmation prompt if
> the buffer has an associated process. This would cover *shell*
I agree completely with Bob that C-x C-v should be made safer. I use it
very frequently and have also accidentally lost data by using it. Your
suggestion of making it dependent on an associated process sounds very
good, but unfortunately it doesn't work for example with ERC buffers.
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, (continued)
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/13
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/16
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, M Jared Finder, 2009/07/02
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Miles Bader, 2009/07/02
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2009/07/03
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Andreas Schwab, 2009/07/03
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Miles Bader, 2009/07/03
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful,
Markus Triska <=
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Stefan Monnier, 2009/07/05
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/05
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Stefan Monnier, 2009/07/11
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/13
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Stefan Monnier, 2009/07/14
Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Stefan Monnier, 2009/07/02