Re: dired.el

[Stefan Monnier]

>    let-binding inhibit-read-only would probably avoid this kind of problem
>    and would also be more correct, most likely.

> You mean let-binding inhibit-read-only to t around the call to message?
> That would not seem to be OK, because, one never knows, the user might
> have, deliberately or accidentally, made the dired buffer writable.

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.
So I suggested to replace one let-binding with the other.
It would most likely fix the minibuffer thing because it would leave the
buffer-read-only variable alone, thus not triggering a minibuffer-refresh.
I have no idea what kind of problem you´re referring to w.r.t writable
dired buffers.


        Stefan