What are the advantages of not saving? Trade those against the potential
side effects of not saving, like the ones April mentioned, and also the
principle of least surprise. ("I told it to save before, but it decided not
to save ... huh?")
The are.you.sure=0 setting is also available, and may be closer to what Jos
is looking for. However, are.you.sure is a global setting, so it does have
its own side effects.
Bruce
"April White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jos vanderZande wrote:
>
>>Is there any reason why the Command.Save.Before=1
>>always saves the file in stead of using the same
>>behaviour used by Command.Go ? (Only save the file
>>when it is changed)
>>
> Jos, I think it has always been this way, but that does not mean it cannot
> be changed.
>
> Though it is arguable whether "save before" and "save before if changed"
> are comparable.
>
> If (and this is a big *if*) a script uses Command.Save.Before=1 and the
> command tool itself then compares two file timestamps, with the above
> change you are proposing, expected side effects would not occur.
>
> Let me use this example:
> - you are editing a file with extension .xyz
> - a command executes a CLI/console tool that converts an .xyz file into
> .zyx which in turn is passed onto some viewer
> - but the viewer is opened only if the conversion occurs,
> - but the conversion only occurs if the .xyz file is newer than then
> .zyx file
>
> I know that this is a long and windy example, but with your revision, the
> viewer would never be displayed.
>
> This is a trivial example, probably better off implemented with
> command.go.
>
> Are there any counter-arguments, ideas, etc?
>
> April
>
> --
> I will strive to live each day as if it were my 50th birthday.
_______________________________________________
Scite-interest mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.lyra.org/mailman/listinfo/scite-interest
