[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: C-x C-v considered harmful
From: |
Bob Rogers |
Subject: |
RE: C-x C-v considered harmful |
Date: |
Sat, 4 Jul 2009 19:16:19 -0400 |
From: "Drew Adams" <address@hidden>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:23:51 -0700
. . .
Does `C-x k' warn you the way you would like, when you use it in a *shell*
buffer? If not, then that is the problem, not something else.
It does indeed kill the *shell* buffer without prompting, which seems
odd, given that it prompts for modified files. I notice that this code
uses the C equivalent of "(and (buffer-modified-p) (buffer-file-name))",
though it queries only if interactive, so a case could be made for
dropping the the "(buffer-file-name)" for symmetry. But I have never
had the problem of invoking "C-x k" by accident (that I recall), so I'm
not sure such a case ought to be made.
. . .
And as you mentioned, `find-alternate-file' tests `(and
(buffer-modified-p) (buffer-file-name))'. I agree with you that the
problem you are seeing is coming from `(buffer-file-name)' being nil,
and that removing that might be an improvement.
As far as I am concerned, removing "(buffer-file-name)" would be
sufficient.
But I am really curious to know why Richard changed this in rev 1.192
to the current (and (buffer-modified-p) (buffer-file-name)) behavior.
Richard, do you remember? I know this is asking a lot . . .
-- Bob
- C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/01
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Miles Bader, 2009/07/01
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/01
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Kevin Rodgers, 2009/07/02
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/02
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/02
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/02
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/03
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/03
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful,
Bob Rogers <=
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/05
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/05
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/05
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Johan Bockgård, 2009/07/07
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2009/07/05
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/05
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2009/07/04
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/05
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2009/07/06
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/06