Subject: Re: bug#72689: 31.0.50; Proposal to improve string-pixel-width

From: David Ponce <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 09:23:26 +0200

On 23/08/2024 8:49 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Juri Linkov <[email-masked]>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>,  [email-masked]
>> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 09:20:07 +0300
>>
>>> +*** New macro 'with-work-buffer'.
>>> +This macro is similar to the already existing macro `with-temp-buffer'.
>>
>> Another variant for the name that emphasizes its opposite nature
>> to `with-temp-buffer' would be `with-permanent-buffer'
>> or `with-perm-buffer'.
> 
> FWIW, I like with-work-buffer better.  But that doesn't mean there
> couldn't be proposals for better names.

Same for me.  The name `with-work-buffer' clearly stay that you are
using a work buffer, which is actually a temp buffer, excepted that
the implementation try to minimize the number of new allocated buffer.

`with-work-buffer' could be safely replaced by `with-temp-buffer' and
probably `with-temp-buffer' by `with-work-buffer' in many cases.