[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x C-v considered harmful
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: C-x C-v considered harmful |
Date: |
Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:18:14 -0400 |
But I am really curious to know why Richard changed this in rev 1.192
to the current (and (buffer-modified-p) (buffer-file-name)) behavior.
Richard, do you remember? I know this is asking a lot . . .
I don't remember, but I would guess it is becuase most non-file-visiting
buffers don't contain precious information. I probably did not think
about the cases where they do.
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, (continued)
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/02
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/02
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/02
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/03
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/03
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/04
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/05
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/05
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/05
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Johan Bockgård, 2009/07/07
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful,
Richard Stallman <=
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/05
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2009/07/04
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/05
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2009/07/06
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/06
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2009/07/07
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Robert J. Chassell, 2009/07/06
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/06
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/06
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/07