GNU bug report logs - #76526
30.1; kill-this-buffer not works normally

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: matrixfeeney <at> gmail.com, 76526 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#76526: 30.1; kill-this-buffer not works normally
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 21:45:53 +0200

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 19:35:53 +0000
> Cc: matrixfeeney <at> gmail.com, 76526 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
> >> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 19:21:00 +0000
> >> Cc: 76526 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >>
> >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> >>
> >> > tags 76526 notabug
> >> > thanks
> >> >
> >> >> From: Magi Feeney <matrixfeeney <at> gmail.com>
> >> >> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 21:25:32 +0800
> >> >>
> >> >> I tested the function kill-this-buffer with "emacs -Q", it consistently
> >> >> gives the output:
> >> >>
> >> >> "command-execute: kill-this-buffer must be bound to an event with
> >> >> parameters"
> >> >>
> >> >> and doesn't kill the current buffer.
> >> >
> >> > Yes.  This is the intended behavior.  The function's doc string says:
> >> >
> >> >   This command must be bound to a mouse event, and can be reliably
> >> >   invoked only from the menu bar, otherwise it could decide to silently
> >> >   do nothing or signal an error.  Use ‘kill-current-buffer’ if you
> >> >   need to invoke a similar command from keyboard.
> >> >
> >> > This is not a bug.
> >>
> >> FWIW, I think we should improve this.  It's bad that we show this
> >> command in M-x completions when we already know that it won't work.
> >>
> >> Perhaps this particular command/function should also be renamed to
> >> menu-bar--kill-this-buffer, or something like that, so that users aren't
> >> mislead to think that they can invoke it outside the menu bar.
> >
> > I don't see how a different name will help.  What can be more explicit
> > than what the doc string, which is the first place users should look
> > when a command doesn't do what they expect?
> 
> A different name is more explicit because you don't have to look at the
> docstring.

When did it stop someone from complaining?

Previous Next

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