bug#12487: 24.2.50; Inconsistent, so confusing, confirmation msgs for `find-alternate-file'

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > You are asked "Buffer foo is modified; save it first (yes or no)".
> > (There is no question mark here, BTW.)  You reply "no".  
> > Then you are asked "Kill and replace the buffer without saving it?
> > (yes or no)".
> 
> See also http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/151762

I really hope this gets fixed.  It was much better before (but there was room
for improvement).  Now I'm afraid that users will *lose data*.

It is just too easy to answer "yes" to the first question, thinking that it is
asking you to confirm the action that you, after all, asked for (which includes
abandoning any changes to the currently visited file).

`find-alternate-file' is not simply choosing to visit another buffer or file.
It is specifically an abandonment of the current state of the currently visited
file.

Especially for the common use case of using it to revert to the saved state of
the same file (and unmodified in any other way, including display - overlays
etc.).  At least for that case, the new interaction is a disaster.

Imagine asking someone whether s?he wants to *save* the current file when s?he
invokes `revert-buffer'!  Naturally, we ask exactly the opposite: are you sure
you want to abandon your changes?

We should ask a question (one, not two!) here, but the question should be
phrased in terms of confirming ("yes") that you want to abandon any
modifications.  It should not be phrased negatively, asking whether you want to
do something different from what the command intends, i.e., save your changes.

This change made to the user interaction no doubt reflects good intentions, but
it was misguided, IMHO.