bug#3625: save-some-buffers won't buzz off and let me just visit a file

bug#3625: save-some-buffers won't buzz off and let me just visit a file

[jidanni]

C-x s runs the command save-some-buffers,
which will ask
  Type SPC or `y' to save the current buffer;
  DEL or `n' to skip the current buffer;
  RET or `q' to give up on the save (skip all remaining buffers);
  C-g to quit (cancel the whole command);
  ! to save all remaining buffers;
  C-r to view this buffer;
  d to view changes in this buffer;
  or . (period) to save the current buffer and exit.
But nowhere in that list is there a choice to just let you visit that
buffer. E.g.,
  C-r to view this buffer;
still "waits out there in the parking lot (minibuffer) with the engine
running, waiting for you to come back out. He just won't buzz-off."

In GNU Emacs 23.0.94.1

bug#3625: save-some-buffers won't buzz off and let me just visit a file

[Sven Joachim]

On 2009-06-20 05:43 +0200, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:

> C-x s runs the command save-some-buffers,
> which will ask
>   Type SPC or `y' to save the current buffer;
>   DEL or `n' to skip the current buffer;
>   RET or `q' to give up on the save (skip all remaining buffers);
>   C-g to quit (cancel the whole command);
>   ! to save all remaining buffers;
>   C-r to view this buffer;
>   d to view changes in this buffer;
>   or . (period) to save the current buffer and exit.
> But nowhere in that list is there a choice to just let you visit that
> buffer. E.g.,
>   C-r to view this buffer;
> still "waits out there in the parking lot (minibuffer) with the engine
> running, waiting for you to come back out. He just won't buzz-off."

This was done on purpose because somebody had complained about the
difficulties of recursive editing which is probably the only feasible
way to visit the buffer in this situation.  See bug #381¹.

Sven


¹ http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/381

bug#3625: save-some-buffers won't buzz off and let me just visit a file

[jidanni]

SJ> This was done on purpose because somebody had complained about the
SJ> difficulties of recursive editing which is probably the only feasible
SJ> way to visit the buffer in this situation.  See bug #381¹.
SJ> ¹ http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/381

I see what I want then is the same as what I want now, an additional:

g: never mind saving anymore files, just let me visit that buffer now,
and don't bother waiting for me.

There must be some lisp way of doing that other than something like
system("exec emacsclient -n that_file&")?

We don't need save-some-buffers to do anything more at this point other
than call switch-to-buffer that_files_buffer, and then that's the end of
switch-to-buffer

OK, maybe what is making this impossible is
save-some-buffers-action-alist. But this is getting over my head.

bug#3625: save-some-buffers won't buzz off and let me just visit a file

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

jidanni@jidanni.org writes:

> C-x s runs the command save-some-buffers,
> which will ask
>   Type SPC or `y' to save the current buffer;
>   DEL or `n' to skip the current buffer;
>   RET or `q' to give up on the save (skip all remaining buffers);
>   C-g to quit (cancel the whole command);
>   ! to save all remaining buffers;
>   C-r to view this buffer;
>   d to view changes in this buffer;
>   or . (period) to save the current buffer and exit.
> But nowhere in that list is there a choice to just let you visit that
> buffer. E.g.,
>   C-r to view this buffer;
> still "waits out there in the parking lot (minibuffer) with the engine
> running, waiting for you to come back out. He just won't buzz-off."

That's a good idea -- exiting the query and popping to the buffer being
asked about is a pretty natural thing to do.

So I've now added it to Emacs 27, but it was surprisingly awkward to do,
based on how the actions are defined (a defvarred alist), what they can
return (just "don't do this" and "do this"), and the fact that
`save-some-buffers' is wrapped in a `save-window-excursion' that I think
is best left alone.

But I think I successfully hacked it together by mixing some dynamic
binding with some lexical binding in a kinda messy way.  If somebody has
a better idea how to do this that doesn't go through three indirections:
please be my guest.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no