Re: `*' interactive spec in some text-killing functions

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 6/28/07, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

> WHY?!?!?  WHY would it be convenient?  PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, explain
> in what respect it would help you at all save time, confusion or
> whatever.  _Why_ can't you explain what gains you would draw from such
> a message?

David, I explained many messages ago, and you're refusing to listen:
If I do a command, and the result of this command is irrelevant, I
consider it an error. I want a warning (and please don't explain me
again the differences between warnings and errors: I understood it
already the first time I used "warning", but I didn't have the insight
to be very precise in my use of Emacs terminology because I didn't
imagine that would turn into that kind of discussion).

You're arguing that is not irrelevant because the mode gets changed
and, in some situations, it is even useful. I don't have *any* useful
day to day activity with Emacs where switching to overwrite in a
read-only buffer is useful, so *I* want to get a message telling me
that I'm doing something superfluous. You're arguing that the PgUp
command case is different (and yes, I understand quite well how it
works, thanks), but it is *not*: PgUp could refuse to work without
alerting the user, and nothing would be different *at all*, except
that the user would take a few seconds to notice what was he doing
wrong. The message in the PgUp case is *just* *to* *say* *the* *user*
*he's* *doing* *something* *not* *useful*.

            Juanma