[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Missing `with' macro?
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Missing `with' macro? |
Date: |
Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:58:18 -0400 |
> Yes, I think so. If it is unlikely that users will edit the file by
> hand, that means there is unlikely to be a buffer to reuse. But IF
> there is a buffer to reuse, it means the user edited the file by hand.
> When he does so, you should not save his changes without his ok!
It means the user -visited- the file explicitly. He may or may not have
been interested in changing it by hand. I don't know, however, if this
distinction is important.
If he didn't decide to change it by hand, then either (1) the buffer
is unmodified, or (2) he changed it unwittingly.
Aha -- perhaps there's a good "compromise" here. What if REUSE is treated
as nil if the extant buffer is modified and WRITE is non-nil?
It would work, but getting rid of the REUSE argument is much better
because it makes this macro simpler to use.
Should I add a note that the user's buffer can become outdated as a result
of failed or unattempted reuse of it?
No need. There are lots of ways a file could be changed on disk while
it is visited in an Emacs buffer; there is no particular reason to
distinguish this way from all the rest.