Re: C-x C-v considered harmful

[Juri Linkov]

> 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.

I have no opinion about a more general option.  The reason
why I proposed to ask a confirmation for process buffers is
because I personally have a problem with the *Async Shell Command*
buffer.  I sometimes kill it accidentally while it still runs
a process because usually there is no output and it is difficult
to see whether its process is finished or not.  There is only
a short unhighlighted string ":run" in the mode line that is
hard to notice.

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/