Re: point of "buffer still has clients" message

[Ian van der Neut <ivdneut@gmail.com>]

For what it's worth, my use case where I run into this message is as
follows:

I have a function:

(defun kill-buffer-delete-frame ()
  "Kill the current buffer and delete the frame its in."
  (interactive)
  (if (kill-buffer) (delete-frame))
)

And a key bound to it:
(global-set-key (kbd "C-c c") 'kill-buffer-delete-frame)

I run into this message, seemingly unnecessary when I want to kill the
buffer and close the frame it's in. should I call server-edit somewhere in
that function to get rid of it? From the server-edit documentation it seems
that it only kills the buffer if it didn't exist when loaded with
emacsclient. I run emacsclient primarily with the --no-wait option btw,

Thank you,

Ian.


On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Jarek Czekalski
<jarekczek@poczta.onet.pl>wrote:

>
> W dniu 2013-11-26 16:55, Barry Margolin pisze:
>
>  When you have EDITOR set to most editors, the client starts a new editor
>> process, you edit the file, save it, and then exit the editor. The
>> client waits for the editor to exit, then it will use the result.
>>
>> But when you use emacsclient, it's not so simple. Emacs keeps on running
>> after you save the file. Emacsclient is waiting for a message from emacs
>> telling it that it you're done, so it should exit, and then its client
>> application can use the result. You do this with the server-edit (C-x #)
>> command.
>>
>
> Barry, that definitely helps to understand the idea. But still it's not
> clear why the things done in server-edit command couldn't be done during
> kill-buffer. The user request is "close the file". They shouldn't have to
> choose between server-edit and kill-buffer.
>
> The user experience is as follows:
> 1. a shortcut is bound to kill-this-buffer
> 2. a buffer is edited throught emacsclient
> 3. user wants to kill the buffer with the shortcut he always uses for that
> or using "File / Close" menu option
>
> So far you both didn't give any justification for the confirmation
> message. If things stay this way we should assume that this message is
> unnecessary and should be removed.
>
> Jarek
>
>
>


-- 
One man's "magic" is another man's engineering. "Supernatural" is a null
word.
-- Excerpt from the notebooks of Lazarus Long, from Robert Heinlein's "Time
Enough for Love"