From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should killing a help or compile buffer also delete the window? Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:04:47 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87is2c7mnx.fsf@brockman.se> <87r7gzyel3.fsf@wigwam.deepwood.net> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1114510383 16307 80.91.229.2 (26 Apr 2005 10:13:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:13:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 26 12:13:01 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DQN2Q-0006s8-FW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:11:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DQN87-00050f-6d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:17:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DQMzC-0002Fx-5H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:08:11 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DQMzB-0002Ek-1b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:08:09 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DQMzA-0001ci-R3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:08:08 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DQN0H-0005BQ-Bb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:09:17 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1DQMvv-0001pK-7B; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:04:47 -0400 Original-To: Daniel Brockman In-reply-to: <87r7gzyel3.fsf@wigwam.deepwood.net> (message from Daniel Brockman on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:50:16 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:36403 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:36403 Granted, but I'm not trying to debate "the right way" to remove a temporary buffer from the screen. I'm proposing that when a temporary buffer is killed, TRYING to also remove the associated window might in itself be the right thing. That's a part of the question of "the right way" to remove a temporary buffer from the screen. It's a quagmire we should avoid getting into.