From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: *scratch* buffer documentation Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 08:12:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3b80e0e2-8a32-4b88-b412-187fba4a1582@default> References: <69AD1F67-BA40-4342-996E-CAC6CC545E2A@traduction-libre.org> <83lfr0v4ib.fsf@gnu.org> <3B5C95CE-77A8-48DA-BD5D-6BD8D8828C30@traduction-libre.org> <83k16jqcpc.fsf@gnu.org> <837e2irfzc.fsf@gnu.org> <83v9q2p4oz.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="155643"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii , Jean-Christophe Helary Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 27 17:13:26 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iksEu-000eKs-R3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:13:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36836 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iksEt-0002sb-JJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:13:23 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60019) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iksEJ-0002PX-Uq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:12:48 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iksEI-0007ij-Ni for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:12:47 -0500 Original-Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:43906) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iksEF-0007c6-CM; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:12:43 -0500 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xBRG8x7s088057; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 16:12:39 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2019-08-05; bh=eTtxu6k59vKPjKvpWBL5zzMhIG820j4g5RpXPjVoIdA=; b=AzklFrTcqL3SUjHfk/s2O/utIR5FusRRXLa2cHucAyam2wkHgALbdf0Ll047Gr4TSRCK fvoMTGUDNM8aUX4OMY4mrgdBtapn+MfYoHk51UkbX7DP8QWoPFnwGfr69vYKSdnftKl1 nYV/pbHh1jOUUFf2MzNy7iUIA09STWSANHo/hVp9W6pZMFvVp3b1m19iBPMBT9GK6E75 kDB3NUBPMnvsfIqsAoPtJu+rUbOeejRFG/dWFA8A/8kXTamcPul9wxEdbxzDlL/dmwIS 4ltNktwOBzK1XPpcsu7jUGR5N5mlI4QGiLAbEoEZ5e3anmW6EQ2V55ooWGKKloT8yfik +w== Original-Received: from aserp3020.oracle.com (aserp3020.oracle.com [141.146.126.70]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2x1c1r62gw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 27 Dec 2019 16:12:39 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xBRG9O6A039960; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 16:12:38 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2x4wj8dwp0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 27 Dec 2019 16:12:38 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0014.oracle.com (abhmp0014.oracle.com [141.146.116.20]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id xBRGCZHV030280; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 16:12:35 GMT In-Reply-To: <83v9q2p4oz.fsf@gnu.org> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4939.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9483 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1911140001 definitions=main-1912270137 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9483 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1911140001 definitions=main-1912270137 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.85 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:243706 Archived-At: > How about this addition instead, after the first paragraph: >=20 > Buffers exist as long as they are used, and are deleted ("killed") > when no longer needed, either by you (see Kill Buffer) or by Emacs > (e.g., when you exit Emacs, see Exiting). Minor suggestion (and I agree that it can help to have some such statement where we introduce buffers): "Used" could mislead. It could give the impression that a buffer is "no longer needed" only when it is no longer visible or is being actively edited by a user. It's not about whether a user is using the buffer (or that she thinks she is). It may not be obvious here that it's about whether Emacs - anything in Emacs - is "using" the buffer, i.e., that there is some reference to it - some need for it. (But "reference" might not be clear to some non-programmers.) "No longer needed" is probably clear enough, on its own. Without saying what that means, it will likely be interpreted correctly, as meaning that Emacs (not just a user) needs the buffer for some reason. It's OK to be vague about what "need" means, even if it's not so OK (IMO) to be vague about what "use" means. I suggest dropping mention of being "used".