From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs Subject: Re: 22.1.90; desktop-save throws (error "No buffer named ") Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:00:57 +0100 Message-ID: References: <92ve4aefit.fsf@nospam.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204153286 8234 80.91.229.12 (27 Feb 2008 23:01:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:01:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org, Martin Fischer , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stefan Monnier" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 28 00:01:52 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JUVHR-0006eJ-74 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:01:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JUVGv-000577-38 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:01:09 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JUVGp-00056d-2T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:01:03 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JUVGm-00055c-PU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:01:01 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JUVGm-00055W-IL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:01:00 -0500 Original-Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.181]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JUVGl-0003W0-Kb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:01:00 -0500 Original-Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k34so3959427wah.10 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:00:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=Ugo7/bQ1cKuJG9vCWat/snShoXmdxD5dyMrZmzo31p8=; b=LMHeXF2rUloCIYocUnOTbBM5j7GhJrtl52Ae5MRIH7QV8xddC4qsjEh64X8aHmZ71di4jCQ07KPm+b87bDnp2Jx60GhvuT/LTkP43Iu3YUFlAmGALXhhcXR1N/b9sV7LcoeahA5k5x8maXj3xtarqeepzW/N4PyMmVg6WFJRIlE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=O0JHbOxaCrF6hjwgT9lwdD7XOYcG+WVGs+yp+OWtdtkAIpzewI7+ijetXsJgPQ4DpSnKRE07eXwI8UsivNAKP2ot5hDfMYQ28naief+GXUOYFlblmat6FWWYStK6aTM5J+FNmpOLDN82SRt46YQ3DFQsEOCi1x4dGhCgg1JeLYE= Original-Received: by 10.114.38.2 with SMTP id l2mr8231733wal.106.1204153257664; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:00:57 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.115.72.13 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:00:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:90662 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:21324 Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > No, the whole point of the function is to provide a meaningful > functionality independently from desktop.el. As there are no other users, we don't know if it is more useful and general to return nil for empty basenames or to return "". > Exactly: *to desktop* this is so, but not in general, so the test > belongs in desktop.el. There are no general uses of `uniquify-buffer-base-name'. There is no general definition of a "base name", it is an internal thing of uniquify; so it is up to us to decide whether an empty basename is a base name at all or not. For the moment being, the only user (desktop) is cleaner if an empty basename and no basename at all are equivalent. Juanma