bug#15902: 24.3.50; Auto-save file not deleted when quitting Emacs (and saying "don't save")

["Sebastien Vauban" <sva-news-D0wtAvR13HarG/iDocfnWg@public.gmane.org>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: "Sebastien Vauban" <sva-news-D0wtAvR13HarG/iDocfnWg@public.gmane.org>
>> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:23:38 +0100
>> 
>> If I modify some file, then quit Emacs, I'm reminded that I have an unsaved
>> buffer:
>> 
>>     Modified buffers exist; exit anyway?
>> 
>> I answer "yes".
>> 
>> In a new Emacs session, when opening that same file, Emacs tells me I have to
>> recover it. Quite confusing!?
>> 
>> Cause: the Auto-save file (#file#) hasn't been deleted by Emacs after having
>> explicitly having said: "No, I don't want to keep those modifications to my
>> file, throw them away".
>
> No, you did NOT say that you want to throw away your modifications.
> You just said that you want to exit right away, even though you have
> modifications.  Emacs just makes you a service by keeping them, just
> in case of "oops".

I understand the question "do you want to exit anyway (while you have unsaved
things)" as "be cautious: you'll loose your modifications".

In a way, it's nice that Emacs does keep the file in case of, but what's
annoying is that you can't easily go on with the editing of your file, from
where you left it saved: you (have to) see the message "please recover your
file" (while the file wasn't damaged at the first place), and then decide what
to do.

And, from there, it's possible I'm not aware of the right way, but:

- I don't (always) know how to make the right choice: I see what I have, not
  what I'll get if I "recover" the file

- what I do, if I know I don't want to recover, is go to Dired, delete
  the #file#, kill the buffer containing file, and reopen the file. This time,
  no message, everything's as I expected. I can go on editing my file.

I can be convinced there is no real right or wrong way between the two
behaviors (the current, and the one I was asking for), but I instinctively
consider mine as being closer the what the user expected.

Anyway, if you say that the current way is the correct one, I'll still find
this weird, but you can safely close the bug.

Best regards,
  Seb

-- 
Sebastien Vauban