RE: C-x C-v considered harmful

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> Of course, this raises a question whether an information's 
> worth in the *shell* buffer is higher than in the *Shell
> Command Output* buffer and shouldn't killing the *Shell
> Command Output* buffer ask a confirmation as well?
> 
> Then what about the Async shell command that runs a command 
> in the background? Should C-x C-v ask a confirmation in the
> *Async Shell Command* buffer? Currently it simply kills the
> child process without a question.
> 
> BTW, I am experiencing a higher risk of losing information with M-!
> more than with C-x C-v.  M-! is difficult to type with one hand
> because the `1' key is located directly above the Shift key,
> so a combination with the Meta key often produces the wrong key M-1
> (with Shift unpressed).  Typing a shell command in a Dired buffer
> without paying attention to the screen results in a complete mess
> (since most Dired keybndings are just one letter) that needs to be
> analyzed afterwards to determine the damage (looking for files marked,
> copied, moved, deleted, etc.)

I thought we had moved forward from the question of `find-alternate-file' to the
question of `kill-buffer'. If you agree, then please, let's phrase the
discussion that way, going forward.

The question, for each of the particular contexts you cite, is whether
_`kill-buffer'_ should query/warn. How `kill-buffer' might be called is not the
point.