From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: Warning with latest git pull Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:53:16 +0100 Message-ID: <8738wjyyer.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <87a9qxl6bv.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87621jxu41.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87r4k746o8.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87sj4nw8d6.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87liaf422j.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87sj4mx0wb.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87r4k6cb5u.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <8738wm10pr.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87mwusmzvo.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87liacgv82.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57598) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UAKyA-0005Ua-6x for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:53:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UAKy8-00073W-2p for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:53:22 -0500 Received: from mail-we0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c03::232]:49124) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UAKy7-00073F-SP for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:53:19 -0500 Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id x48so3413243wey.23 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 05:53:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87liacgv82.fsf@Rainer.invalid> (Achim Gratz's message of "Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:27:09 +0100") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Achim Gratz Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Achim, Achim Gratz writes: > The point of having the new macro is to avoid the question about > reverting the file when the file visited by a buffer has been edited > outside Emacs. You can do exactly the same changes (cosmetic or not) > with both macros, but org-unmodified will ask you when the file and the > buffer have diverged due to the file changing outside Emacs. You > shouldn't do this of course unless you know with certainty that you are > never going to save the file. There's another difference between these > two: org-unmodified does not let you change read-only buffers (I don't > know if that's intentional or not). With all this said, the > compatibility part of org-with-silent-modifications can't simply be > plugging in org-unmodified (this loses functionality that presumably was > needed). The change to make from the implementation I gave would be > losing the let-bindings for buffer-file-name buffer-file-truename and > perhaps inhibit-read-only. I don't think Org should do better than Emacs wrt files that are marked as unmodified while they have been edited outside Emacs. In such cases, Emacs simply ignore external modifications when saving, and warn the user before editing. That's the same for agenda files: you'll be warned before editing them (switching a TODO, etc.) and not warned when saving unmodified Org agenda files. -- Bastien