Re: *scratch* buffer documentation

[Jean-Christophe Helary <jean.christophe.helary@traduction-libre.org>]

Óscar,

Please read my reply to Eli.

JC


> On Dec 26, 2019, at 12:27, Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> wrote:
> 
> Jean-Christophe Helary <jean.christophe.helary@traduction-libre.org>
> writes:
> 
>>> I Think that you are missing one important thing: users are generally
>>> not idiots.
>> 
>> It is not about being idiots or not. But about how self-contained
>> should the documentation be.
>> 
>> If you show me the place in the documentation where the default
>> behavior is described then I'll need to worry about why I did not find
>> it.
> 
>  19.4 Killing Buffers
> 
>     ‘C-x k’ (‘kill-buffer’) kills one buffer, [...] If you ask to kill
>  a file-visiting buffer that is modified, then you must confirm with
>  ‘yes’ before the buffer is killed.
> 
> 
> A corollary is that other buffers may not trigger the confirmation.
> 
>>> Emacs does have its dark corners, but I don't think saving buffers
>> 
>> Indeed, saving buffers is not an issue. It is killing buffers that is.
> 
> IMO the implication that Emacs only cares about the persistence of
> changes made to file-visiting buffers is clear. If the user, somehow,
> expects that Emacs will warn on quitting about changes to *scratch*, he
> will swiftly learn what "This buffer is for text that is not saved"
> means :-)
> 
> 

Jean-Christophe Helary
-----------------------------------------------
http://mac4translators.blogspot.com @brandelune