Re: C-x C-q more useful as toggle-read-only

[Klaus Berndl]

On 25 Oct 2000, Francesco Potorti` wrote:

>  Not only  that.  Also  it is intuitive  only in  some cases, and  not in
>  others.  For example, I work with  CVS, and I never use read-only files,
>  so using C-xC-q to commit my changes would be rather awkward to me, as I
>  am accustomed  to C-xC-q meaning  toggle-read-only.  But this  annoys me
>  also when under RCS.  I sometimes want  to make a small change to a file
>  without checking it  out, just to evaluate a  modified elisp expression,
>  for example, or to cut and paste  it to a different buffer.  Thus I need
>  to make the buffer writable without involving vc at all.
>  
>  But  these are  only examples.   The real  truth is  that C-xC-q  and VC
>  should have nothing to do with  each other, except possibly as an expert
>  option, as Michael J Downes correctly points out.

Ok, all these examples of you and Michael have convinced me that an
expert-option is probably the best choice. Eli has already suggested to
introduce a new option, let me cite:

,----
| Eli:
| Okay, how about a user option (defaulting to nil) that, if non-nil, would
| always bypass the VC-related effect of C-x C-q?
`----

I agree, but in combination with that new option *vc-toggle-read-only* should
have in the "expert-mode" (the new option /= nil) the best automatic
available, means something like i have posted should be added to the function,
so Michaels scenario is also satisfied.

Klaus

-- 
Klaus Berndl                    mailto: klaus.berndl@sdm.de
sd&m AG                         http://www.sdm.de
software design & management    
Thomas-Dehler-Str. 27, 81737 München, Germany
Tel +49 89 63812-392, Fax -220