[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: C-x C-v considered harmful
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: C-x C-v considered harmful |
Date: |
Thu, 9 Jul 2009 15:26:14 -0700 |
> > This is the kind of thing for which it's good to both (a)
> > provide reasonable default behavior and (b) make it easy
> > for users to change/override that behavior. IOW, it's fine
> > to do something smart here, but that should not be hard-coded.
>
> This is already configurable via `set-process-query-on-exit-flag':
>
> Specify if query is needed for process when Emacs is exited.
> If the second argument flag is non-nil, Emacs will query
> the user before exiting if process is running.
>
> We can just extend its semantics to "when Emacs is exited or
> a buffer is killed".
>
> This option is queried via `process-query-on-exit-flag'
> as you can see in the code I sent.
I have nothing to say about that, being ignorant.
Perhaps someone else has a comment.
However, you seem to be assuming that this is only about process buffers. It's
true that the OP's example was a *shell* buffer, which has an associated
process. But perhaps the inherent problem is more general?
I still wonder if being able to specify individual buffers (or classes of
buffers) for which confirmation is appropriate would not be a useful feature.
Dunno - as I said, I don't have a problem with the lack of a warning,
personally.
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, (continued)
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Robert J. Chassell, 2009/07/06
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/06
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/06
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/07
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/08
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/09
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/09
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/09
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/09
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/10
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/13
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/16
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, M Jared Finder, 2009/07/02
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Miles Bader, 2009/07/02
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2009/07/03
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Andreas Schwab, 2009/07/03
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Miles Bader, 2009/07/03