On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Eli Zaretskii <
eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> Then I guess you are saying that in the case of emacs-lock there's no
> similar bug?
No bug. I thought about it and decided that aborting in kill-emacs-hook was the more reasonable behavior. After all, if you take the trouble to tell Emacs that a buffer is precious enough not to want Emacs to exit while the buffer is alive, you won't want to lose it by accident. If you're so hard pressed to do M-x kill-emacs <RET>, you can precede that with M-x emacs-lock-mode <RET> to toggle the protection off.
> I'll probably agree (I don't use that package), but why does it have
> to tell us that desktop.el should behave the same? It doesn't have
> the same purpose, right?
No, and I'm not arguing that desktop.el should behave the same. Just that the case isn't so clear-cut as the bug report seems to imply. In any case, if the sensible thing is not to ask anything from kill-emacs-hook (emacs-lock doesn't, BTW), then we have to provide an option so the user can chose if they want their current desktop silently saved, or silently discarded.