On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 12:16 PM Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> wrote:

>
> Thanks in advance!
> Do note that we still cannot blindly replace every instance of
> buffer-file-name with the new function. At least a cursory case-by-case
> check is necessary to make sure that logic will not be broken.]


Understood, that's clear to me. I plan on making the common function
something that will resolve the buffer filename whether the buffer is
direct or indirect. For the case of a new Org buffer I'm not sure what I
can return other than nil. For functions that require a filename, I think
we'll have to evaluate those on a case-by-case basis and figure out if we
can provide a helper/wrapper that can simplify error reporting when a
filename is required. Where would be the best place to put the
`org-base-buffer-file-name` function?

Thanks,

Derek


-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Derek Chen-Becker                                             |
| GPG Key available at https://keybase.io/dchenbecker and       |
| https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=derek%40chen-becker.org |
| Fngrprnt: EB8A 6480 F0A3 C8EB C1E7  7F42 AFC5 AFEE 96E4 6ACC  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+