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: [Emacs-commit] emacs/lisp saveplace.el Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 00:18:21 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87d5r9e9op.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1117513472 12501 80.91.229.2 (31 May 2005 04:24:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 04:24:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 31 06:24:24 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DcyIP-0002MN-EF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 31 May 2005 06:24:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DcyNQ-0008SG-BG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 31 May 2005 00:29:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DcyKW-00077E-QW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 May 2005 00:26:17 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DcyKP-000735-5o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 May 2005 00:26:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DcyKO-00070l-Rs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 May 2005 00:26:08 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DcyFK-00053L-Eb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 May 2005 00:20:54 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1DcyCr-00060K-Vd; Tue, 31 May 2005 00:18:22 -0400 Original-To: kfogel@red-bean.com In-reply-to: <87d5r9e9op.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> (message from Karl Fogel on Sun, 29 May 2005 21:20:38 -0500) 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:37921 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:37921 What were the bad effects of using 'write-file'? It made saveplace act as if the user had visited this file, so that the next session would restore the place. I ask because I'm wondering if the same change should be made to 'bookmark-write-file' in bookmark.el. If bookmark.el currently visits the file when reading it, changing the way it writes the file would not alter the outcome. In fact, maybe there should be a bigger change to bookmark-write-file. Instead of using find-file-noselect, it could just work the way save-place-alist-to-file does: switch to a buffer, clear the buffer, insert the new data, and write it out to the destination. That is: How often do users visit the bookmark file? If they do this commonly, then it is better to visit the file. If they do this quite rarely, then could be is better to work like save-place-alist-to-file. Another alternative, which could be best if you want Emacs to make backups of the bookmark file in the usual way, is to visit the file normally, but kill the buffer after saving it, unless the buffer existed previously.