From xemacs-m  Sun Jan 12 16:14:15 1997
Received: from venus.Sun.COM (venus.Sun.COM [192.9.25.5])
          by xemacs.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP
	  id QAA01748 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:14:14 -0600 (CST)
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.25]) by venus.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id OAA29774; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 14:13:03 -0800
Received: from kindra.eng.sun.com by Eng.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3)
	id OAA09777; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 14:13:02 -0800
Received: from xemacs.eng.sun.com by kindra.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id OAA27850; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 14:13:00 -0800
Received: by xemacs.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id OAA17665; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 14:12:59 -0800
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 14:12:59 -0800
Message-Id: <199701122212.OAA17665@xemacs.eng.sun.com>
From: Martin Buchholz <mrb@Eng.Sun.COM>
To: wmperry@aventail.com
Cc: Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com>, xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Deletion of read-only extents (was Re: scrollbars)
In-Reply-To: <199701112311.PAA00425@wmperry.in.aventail.com>
References: <9701080035.AA12973@euler.alphatech.com>
	<kigafql5608.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
	<x220bwlhpl.fsf@lemcbed.lem.uni-karlsruhe.de>
	<kigu3osmvl0.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
	<x2sp4cxtob.fsf@lemcbed.lem.uni-karlsruhe.de>
	<m29164c72h.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
	<x2vi97uv6m.fsf@lemcbed.lem.uni-karlsruhe.de>
	<m2loa0u0vt.fsf_-_@altair.xemacs.org>
	<199701112311.PAA00425@wmperry.in.aventail.com>
Reply-To: Martin Buchholz <mrb@Eng.Sun.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

>>>>> "bp" == William M Perry <wmperry@aventail.com> writes:

bp> Steven L. Baur writes:
>> Do you consider the 19.14 ability to kill read-only extents a
>> feature you must have, may sometimes need, or don't need at all?
>> 
>> I've already received a number of complaints about the way this works,
>> and I'm in favor of ditching the feature.  So if you like it, now is
>> the time to speak up. 

bp>   I call it a bug. :)  If its read-only, its read-only, dammit.

I'm not arguing either way on this, but the Unix file system provides
similar semantics, in that the permission to delete a file is
completely independent of the permission to write to it.  So one could
(even though I'm not) argue that permission to delete a read-only
extent should depend only on whether the buffer is read-only.

Martin

