Re: The emacsclient socket vs. etc/emacs.bash

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> Yes, the CVS had a code for a short while, where it removed the
>> socket file.  But it was fixed.

> If the Emacs server detects that the server file exists (which means:
> another Emacs instance, in the same machine, with the same server
> name),

The problem is to remove the socket file when the server quits, because we
don't know for sure that it's still our socket.

> it could read its contents and contact the previous Emacs
> instance. Then:

> - If it cannot connect, assume it's a leftover and overwrite it
> - If it can connect and the previous Emacs wants to keep it, don't
> start the server on the new instance (and warn the user)
> - If it can connect and the previous Emacs relinquishes the server,
> overwrite the server file (and the previous instance knows it is not
> the server anymore)

Yes, that's a possible way to do it better.  But it still will not prevent
leftover socket files in case Emacs exited precipitously.
So it's still preferable for emacs.bash to use the
`alternate-editor' argument.

> It should be relatively simple to implement.

Not so sure since you don't whether whether you're talking (though the
socket) to yourself or to some other process.


        Stefan