Re: xref and leaving "temporary" buffers open

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 07/27/2015 07:02 PM, martin rudalics wrote:

> A buffer is atomically dead when its name is set to nil.  So
> conceptually there should never be any problems.  Yet, there are all
> those checks whether a buffer has recursively become dead in
> `kill-buffer' which always keep me wondering ...

We'll see, I suppose.

>  > By the way, I wonder if we're going to discourage, or somehow
>  > specially handle, calling find-file-noselect with RAWFILE t.
>
> This is one of the problems I see.  Another issue is that of name
> management.  Would a hidden buffer's name be uniquified?

Probably. Different buffers with the same name are not allowed, right?

Something else might be worth doing is emulating 
semantic-find-file-noselect in some generic way.

It's hard to draw a line, but maybe we don't need to know the VC status 
of any hidden buffer, or enable any (?) of the minor modes in it. But 
the point is to speed up opening the buffers.