Subject: bug#76969: kill-buffer fails silently when a thread exists where it's current

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 09:42:24 +0300

> From: Spencer Baugh <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]>,  [email-masked]
> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:41:42 -0400
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> >> Are we okay with nil meaning "thread's buffer is killed and sent a 
> >> signal", t meaning "thread's buffer is never killed" and 'silently' 
> >> meaning "thread's buffer is killed without a signal"?
> >
> > Maybe.  I'm not sure there's a definite agreement about the default.
> 
> Just as one vote, I'm in favor of "thread's buffer is killed and sent a
> signal" being the default behavior.

Thanks, but would you please explain why this is your opinion?  IOW,
how is this better from, say, the current behavior of not killing the
buffer?