From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: MON KEY Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6241: Please make buffer-offer-save permanent local Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 21:28:15 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1274925461 25169 80.91.229.12 (27 May 2010 01:57:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 01:57:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juanma Barranquero To: 6241@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu May 27 03:57:39 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHSLn-00028k-I0 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 May 2010 03:57:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59078 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OHSLm-0002LS-Vl for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 May 2010 21:57:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47693 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OHSLd-0002Bq-Po for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 26 May 2010 21:57:26 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHSLc-0000sQ-B6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 26 May 2010 21:57:25 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:46697) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHSLc-0000sL-97 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 26 May 2010 21:57:24 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHRu9-00054J-RM; Wed, 26 May 2010 21:29:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org In-Reply-To: Resent-From: MON KEY Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 01:29:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6241 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 6241-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6241.127492370619476 (code B ref 6241); Thu, 27 May 2010 01:29:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6241) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 May 2010 01:28:26 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHRtY-000544-Tf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 26 May 2010 21:28:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com ([209.85.213.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHRtX-00053z-M2 for 6241@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 26 May 2010 21:28:24 -0400 Original-Received: by yxn35 with SMTP id 35so61705yxn.3 for <6241@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 26 May 2010 18:28:16 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.150.142.18 with SMTP id p18mr433440ybd.126.1274923695896; Wed, 26 May 2010 18:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.151.143.21 with HTTP; Wed, 26 May 2010 18:28:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Sender-Auth: GxLRssDWroOlqsg0Zsp8s2NZR7I X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 21:29:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:37317 Archived-At: > importantly, I'm not sure how it'd affect existing code. Could someone > investigate how safe would be such a change, and could someone argue for > (and/or against) it? I don't have a definitive use case where this is clearly NTRT but in general I find these types of `globals' invasive and I appreciate the luxury of being able to nuke them when and as I see fit. Let third-parties put the variable as needed if that is what they/their code requires.... esp. as they may have no idea whatsoever what _I_ will be doing with _my_ buffers. From a user perspective it is often a burden for me to undo this type overreaching. -- /s_p\