From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: move write-contents-functions higher up in basic-save-buffer
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 05:38:55 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83h90bm11c.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wp97xjak.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> (message from Eric Abrahamsen on Wed, 24 May 2017 07:09:07 +0800)
> From: Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>
> Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 07:09:07 +0800
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> >> From: Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>
> >> Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:19:11 +0800
> >>
> >> Most special-mode buffers aren't visiting a file, and thus they miss out
> >> on all the `do-auto-save' and `save-some-buffers' mechanisms. I'd guess
> >> a fair number of packages that use special-mode *do* have some concept
> >> of saving, or persisting data in some other way.
> >>
> >> I think the `write-contents-functions' hook would be an ideal way of
> >> solving this problem, except that the way `basic-save-buffer' is
> >> written, it won't let you get that far without having a file name.
> >>
> >> My proposal is to declare `write-contents-functions' as *explicitly* a
> >> hook for buffers that don't have any file associated with them at all
> >> (this would be in contrast to `write-file-functions'). Then we'd move it
> >> up higher in the process: either earlier in `basic-save-buffer', or all
> >> the way up to `save-buffer' -- that way `basic-save-buffer' could only
> >> be for buffers that have a file.
> >
> > Did you investigate the alternative -- teach basic-save-buffer to save
> > buffers that don't visit files? If that's possible, it should be
> > easier.
>
> I thought that's what I was doing!
I was referring specifically to this party of your description:
> I think the `write-contents-functions' hook would be an ideal way of
> solving this problem, except that the way `basic-save-buffer' is
> written, it won't let you get that far without having a file name.
My thinking was that by somehow overcoming this obstacle, you can
allow users to easily use write-contents-functions as they need.
Does this make sense? If not, can you tell what is the difficulty in
this regard?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-24 2:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-23 7:19 Proposal: move write-contents-functions higher up in basic-save-buffer Eric Abrahamsen
2017-05-23 7:25 ` Eric Abrahamsen
2017-05-23 18:41 ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-05-23 18:39 ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-05-23 23:09 ` Eric Abrahamsen
2017-05-24 2:38 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2017-05-24 4:55 ` Eric Abrahamsen
2017-05-24 12:29 ` Stefan Monnier
2017-05-25 7:42 ` Eric Abrahamsen
2017-05-24 17:46 ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-05-24 14:12 ` Richard Stallman
2017-05-28 10:12 ` Eric Abrahamsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=83h90bm11c.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=emacs-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=eric@ericabrahamsen.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).