Re: Functions in kill-emacs-hook aren't run if emacs gets killed with SIGTERM

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: mail@justinbogner.com
> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:15:30 -0700
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> >> From: Tassilo Horn <tassilo@member.fsf.org>
> >> Is SIGTERM really such a fatal signal as you say?  I always believed
> >> SIGTERM meant "shutdown, but do it cleanly" whereas SIGKILL meant "Die!
> >> Die! Die! NOW!".
> >
> > No, the reason is that SIGKILL cannot be caught or ignored, whereas
> > SIGTERM can.  Which has the practical effect that you mention, but
> > it's IMO important to understand the underlying reason.
> 
> I don't understand what you're trying to say. The reason that SIGKILL
> cannot be ignored is that it means "Die! Die! Die! NOW!", and the reason
> that SIGTERM can is that it means "shutdown, but do it cleanly". Ie, the
> reasons and practical effects are exactly opposite of what you seem to
> be saying: could you explain in more detail?

I don't see how can I explain this in more detail, because you seem to
mix a _meaning_ (i.e. semantics, which is a human thing) with the
software implementation chosen to achieve it, which is the reason for
the immediate exit.

IOW, a meaning humans ascribe to some mechanism cannot be the reason
for what happens when that mechanism is activated.