From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#46397: 27.1; Cannot delete buffer pointing to a file in a path that includes a file Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 21:23:24 +0200 Message-ID: <83sg5r276b.fsf@gnu.org> References: Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3092"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 46397@debbugs.gnu.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, craven@gmx.net To: Matt Armstrong Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 19 20:24:27 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lDBO7-0000gk-4Q for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 20:24:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36078 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDBO6-0003AM-6A for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 14:24:26 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42564) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDBNj-00039g-OE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 14:24:04 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:38861) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDBNi-0003W4-3Y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 14:24:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lDBNh-000443-Uz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 14:24:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 19:24:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 46397 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 46397-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B46397.161376260115572 (code B ref 46397); Fri, 19 Feb 2021 19:24:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 46397) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Feb 2021 19:23:21 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50407 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lDBN2-000435-8q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 14:23:21 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52854) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lDBMz-00042q-FA for 46397@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 14:23:18 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:56342) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDBMs-0003BM-Q7; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 14:23:10 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3500 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lDBMr-00007T-7y; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 14:23:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Matt Armstrong on Fri, 19 Feb 2021 11:10:45 -0800) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:200378 Archived-At: > From: Matt Armstrong > Cc: 46397@debbugs.gnu.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, craven@gmx.net > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 11:10:45 -0800 > > I'm coming to the opinion that issuing a prompt from `unlock-buffer' > itself is a bad idea, but I think prompting from `kill-buffer' is > okay. What do you propose to do for all the other users of unlock-buffer? > I could write a whole essay about why, but instead I'll just > propose the following and ask for your thoughts: > > (a) Modify `kill-buffer' to call `unlock-buffer' sooner, closer to the > point where it is already running hooks prompting the user. Why do we need to move the call? Can we leave it in its current place, and thus minimize potential unintended problems this could cause? Thanks.