From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Proposal: move write-contents-functions higher up in basic-save-buffer Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 05:38:55 +0300 Message-ID: <83h90bm11c.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87zie4yr9s.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <83y3tnmn88.fsf@gnu.org> <87wp97xjak.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1495593585 22942 195.159.176.226 (24 May 2017 02:39:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 02:39:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eric Abrahamsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 24 04:39:38 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dDMD3-0005kB-M2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 May 2017 04:39:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52321 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dDMD7-0005NY-HD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 May 2017 22:39:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59851) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dDMCa-0005NH-4D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 May 2017 22:39:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dDMCV-0002kV-Hq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 May 2017 22:39:08 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:42960) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dDMCV-0002kR-ED; Tue, 23 May 2017 22:39:03 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1754 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dDMCU-0000JF-Oo; Tue, 23 May 2017 22:39:03 -0400 In-reply-to: <87wp97xjak.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> (message from Eric Abrahamsen on Wed, 24 May 2017 07:09:07 +0800) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:215150 Archived-At: > From: Eric Abrahamsen > Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 07:09:07 +0800 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: Eric Abrahamsen > >> Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:19:11 +0800 > >> > >> Most special-mode buffers aren't visiting a file, and thus they miss out > >> on all the `do-auto-save' and `save-some-buffers' mechanisms. I'd guess > >> a fair number of packages that use special-mode *do* have some concept > >> of saving, or persisting data in some other way. > >> > >> I think the `write-contents-functions' hook would be an ideal way of > >> solving this problem, except that the way `basic-save-buffer' is > >> written, it won't let you get that far without having a file name. > >> > >> My proposal is to declare `write-contents-functions' as *explicitly* a > >> hook for buffers that don't have any file associated with them at all > >> (this would be in contrast to `write-file-functions'). Then we'd move it > >> up higher in the process: either earlier in `basic-save-buffer', or all > >> the way up to `save-buffer' -- that way `basic-save-buffer' could only > >> be for buffers that have a file. > > > > Did you investigate the alternative -- teach basic-save-buffer to save > > buffers that don't visit files? If that's possible, it should be > > easier. > > I thought that's what I was doing! I was referring specifically to this party of your description: > I think the `write-contents-functions' hook would be an ideal way of > solving this problem, except that the way `basic-save-buffer' is > written, it won't let you get that far without having a file name. My thinking was that by somehow overcoming this obstacle, you can allow users to easily use write-contents-functions as they need. Does this make sense? If not, can you tell what is the difficulty in this regard?