GNU bug report logs - #46374
28.0.50; Ask me to save buffers only if they are under callers dir

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Cc: 46374 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, hauke <at> haukerehfeld.de, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, tino.calancha <at> gmail.com
Subject: bug#46374: Regression: erronous calls to PRED switch major-mode of unrelated modified buffers
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2022 22:17:06 +0200

> From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2022 21:09:47 +0200
> Cc: 46374 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Hauke Rehfeld <hauke <at> haukerehfeld.de>,
>  Tino Calancha <tino.calancha <at> gmail.com>
> 
> > It's actually easy to distinguish this specific case: when the pred is
> > passed directly to `save-some-buffers` we don't need to do the "call
> > PRED to get the actual predicate" dance, since the caller could just as
> > well do that dance before calling us if that's what they want.
> >
> > IOW, the test for `save-some-buffers-function` is only needed for those
> > functions that come from `save-some-buffers-default-predicate`.
> >
> > Any objection to the patch below (which also aligns the code closer
> > with the doc since the doc of `save-some-buffers` doesn't mention the
> > use of the `save-some-buffers-function` property on its `pred`
> > argument).
> 
> Then this change needs to be in the release branch, so users won't start
> relying on the unintended case of using of the `save-some-buffers-function`
> property on the `pred` argument.

I don't see the message to which you are responding, so I cannot tell
whether the patch you have in mind is appropriate for the release
branch.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.