Re: diff adapted for new M-x compile

[Daniel Pfeiffer]

Saluton, Moin,

Miles Bader <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:13:33PM +0100, Daniel Pfeiffer wrote:
> > Then the already existing diff-backup (which diffs a file with that file's
> > backup) must be even more confusing :-)
> 
> The existing diff commmands are like the diff program, in that they work on
> files, not buffers.  I think this is natural enough -- almost every emacs
> command that invokes an external command makes the same assumption

True, but that holds for diff, not diff-*

> Adding an indicator of _how_ the command differs from the usual convention:
> `diff-buffer-with-backup-file' gives the user a much better chance at seeing
> what's going on.

Actually that's wrong, because you don't get asked for the buffer so it should 
then be a longish `diff-current-buffer-with-backup-file'.  And not even that, 
because it's the other way round, the file being older.  But that's cumbersome 
to explain (diff this buffer's backup file with this buffer).

> I personally think that the buffer-with-file definition would actually be
> better for `diff-backup' than the old definition (for obvious reasons), but
> I
> don't know if replacing it would be wise or not.  I wonder how often people
> run that command intentionally without saving the buffer first?

`diff-backup' doesn't really mean anything, so I wonder if many people would 
actually notice such a change.  I don't think this would be widely used in 
other programs either, such that this change shouldn't break anything.

First asking whether to save might be a compromise, though I'd find that 
annoying.  I very consciously use my commands on unsaved buffers before 
deciding whether to save or revert.

coralament / best Grötens / liebe Grüße / best regards / elkorajn salutojn
Daniel Pfeiffer

-- 
lerne / learn / apprends / läramå    Esperanto:
                              http://lernu.net/