Hi April, For me, the fact that the "auto" keyword already exists for some other property isn't enough reason to push it through. In the absence of any additional user stories, I would defer to Neil.
Bruce "April White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Bruce Dodson wrote: > >>The question will be, which way is the least surprising: having >>savebefore:yes sometimes not save, or having your document saved even when >>you can't save? For me, I don't think it will make a difference either >>way. For some, it's clear that it does make a difference. But, I'm pretty >>sure it doesn't warrant a fourth option. The difference is so subtle that >>another option would be hard to describe, and would just add confusion. >>We should just decide what makes the most sense, make it work that way, >>and document it. >> > Bruce, the code to detect "savebefore:auto" is trivial because of the use > of that keyword for replaceselection. Having this command mode be > documented that "savebefore:yes" always saves, "savebefore:no" never > saves, and "savebefore:auto only saves when the buffer is changed should > be sufficient. > > Your thoughts? Jos? > > April > > -- > Why do people with closed minds always open their mouths? _______________________________________________ Scite-interest mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.lyra.org/mailman/listinfo/scite-interest
