bug#25642: 26.0.50; Save unmodified buffers not visiting a file yet

bug#25642: 26.0.50; Save unmodified buffers not visiting a file yet

[Tino Calancha]

emacs -Q
C-x b foo
foo ; Insert something.
M-: (set-buffer-modified-p nil) RET
C-x C-s ; No file is written.

It's easy to change that flag for several buffers
with `Buffer-menu-not-modified' or
`ibuffer-do-toggle-modified'.  Then, if you plan to save those
buffers and if they have buffer-file-name nil, then you
are not offered to save them.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
From 2e0d336c4889fac79e5621be34e9149eb3064cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 22:53:35 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Save unmodified buffers not visiting a file yet

* lisp/files.el (save-buffer): Set modified flag non-nil before
'basic-save-buffer' call (Bug#25642).
---
 lisp/files.el | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/lisp/files.el b/lisp/files.el
index b7d104853c..c651ef4ee6 100644
--- a/lisp/files.el
+++ b/lisp/files.el
@@ -4822,6 +4822,9 @@ save-buffer
              (not noninteractive)
              (not save-silently))
 	(message "Saving file %s..." (buffer-file-name)))
+    ;; Save it as well when unmodified but not visiting a file yet.
+    (unless (or modp (buffer-file-name))
+      (set-buffer-modified-p t))
     (basic-save-buffer (called-interactively-p 'any))
     (and modp (memq arg '(4 64)) (setq buffer-backed-up nil))))
 
-- 
2.11.0

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
In GNU Emacs 26.0.50.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.22.7)
 of 2017-02-07
Repository revision: c939075b81b2b06c5ec040d7039fd20433509273

bug#25642: 26.0.50; Save unmodified buffers not visiting a file yet

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 23:08:42 +0900
> 
> emacs -Q
> C-x b foo
> foo ; Insert something.
> M-: (set-buffer-modified-p nil) RET
> C-x C-s ; No file is written.
> 
> It's easy to change that flag for several buffers
> with `Buffer-menu-not-modified' or
> `ibuffer-do-toggle-modified'.  Then, if you plan to save those
> buffers and if they have buffer-file-name nil, then you
> are not offered to save them.
> 
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> >From 2e0d336c4889fac79e5621be34e9149eb3064cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 22:53:35 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] Save unmodified buffers not visiting a file yet
> 
> * lisp/files.el (save-buffer): Set modified flag non-nil before
> 'basic-save-buffer' call (Bug#25642).

Please don't, at least not unconditionally.  I use this feature all
the time, e.g. when composing email messages.

I don't actually understand why this would be a problem: the user
explicitly wanted to reset the modified status of a buffer, why should
Emacs second-guess what the user meant?  But if there are some use
cases where you find this annoying (please describe them), let's make
this an optional behavior, off by default.

Thanks.

bug#25642: 26.0.50; Save unmodified buffers not visiting a file yet

[Tino Calancha]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> Subject: [PATCH] Save unmodified buffers not visiting a file yet
>>
>> * lisp/files.el (save-buffer): Set modified flag non-nil before
>> 'basic-save-buffer' call (Bug#25642).
>
> Please don't, at least not unconditionally.  I use this feature all
> the time, e.g. when composing email messages.
OK.
>
> I don't actually understand why this would be a problem: the user
> explicitly wanted to reset the modified status of a buffer, why should
> Emacs second-guess what the user meant?  But if there are some use
> cases where you find this annoying (please describe them), let's make
> this an optional behavior, off by default.
No i don't have in mind cases where i have being annoying but that.
Setting modified flag nil followed to trying to save the buffer
sounds like the user don't want to save the buffer.
I think we can close this bug report.  Thanks.