[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: why read only buffer?
From: |
notbob |
Subject: |
Re: why read only buffer? |
Date: |
6 Jul 2012 21:50:53 GMT |
User-agent: |
slrn/0.9.9p1 (Linux) |
On 2012-07-06, PJ Weisberg <pj@irregularexpressions.net> wrote:
> That's deliberately there to stop you from accidentally modifying a
> backup file when you meant to be working with the regular file. If
> you searched through the source you'd find this in files.el:
Yeah, that's not gonna happen. ;)
What I seem to recall is, backup files were progressively renamed for
more than on "back-up", as in foo~1, foo~2, or something similar.
Perhaps I'm thinking of jed. I'm old. I ferget. ;)
>
> -----
> ;; Make people do a little extra work (C-x C-q)
> ;; before altering a backup file.
> (when (backup-file-name-p buffer-file-name)
> (setq buffer-read-only t))
> -----
So, how does none set it to make it overwriteable, by default. Jes
delete the above code?
nb
--
vi --the heart of evil!