Re: Inhibiting read-only

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:09:39 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > I don't see why the former would be a problem.  If you really want it
> > to work, you can bind it to a command that removes the read-only
> > properties.
> 
> Sure.  But why would we?  A read-only buffer is a simple and
> understandable interface that gives us this already.

But the read-only buffer doesn't fit your bill, it requires that you
develop a non-trivial infrastructure we currently lack.  Isn't it
better to use existing features instead?

> > As for the latter, can you elaborate about the annoyance, since
> > read-only is in yank-excluded-properties?
> 
> Oh, is that a new thing?

AFAIR, it's very old.

> Having to re-apply properties to ensure that we still are read-only
> after inserting text (modulo stickiness) is pretty annoying.

I don't see the annoyance.  Can you elaborate the difficulties you
envision?

> Being able to use a read-only buffer, but have some text be modifiable,
> seems like a simple, obvious and symmetrical thing to do.

But marking the entire buffer read-only and then using text properties
to inhibit that for some portions of the text sounds wrong to me.
Especially when we already have facilities for making only part of the
text read-only.