GNU bug report logs - #76969
kill-buffer fails silently when a thread exists where it's current

Previous Next

Full log

Message #80 received at 76969 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
Cc: sbaugh <at> janestreet.com, 76969 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#76969: kill-buffer fails silently when a thread exists where
 it's current
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 15:54:23 +0300

> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 02:50:44 +0300
> Cc: sbaugh <at> janestreet.com, 76969 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
> 
> On 18/07/2025 09:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 03:23:43 +0300
> >> Cc: sbaugh <at> janestreet.com, 76969 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
> >>
> >>>    . I think we should add an optional argument to make-thread, because
> >>>      calling a function to change the buffer_killable_p attribute might
> >>>      be too late (I'm not against having the function as well)
> >>
> >> Do you think there is a chance for the thread to be started between the
> >> 'make-thread' and 'thread-set-buffer-killable' calls, even if they go
> >> one after another?
> > 
> > No.  But it makes no sense to provide a separate interface if it must
> > always be called immediately after make-thread, or else should be
> > expected to be unreliable.
> > 
> >> I considered making it a keyword argument of 'make-thread' but it seems
> >> like it might not interest most callers, and so clutter the definition
> >> (I couldn't come up with a less awkward name either). Not a strong
> >> opinion, though.
> > 
> > There's no need for keyword arguments.  make-thread has just 2
> > arguments as of now; adding one more is not going to make the calls
> > awkward, especially if most callers will never pass that additional
> > argument.
> 
> All right.
> 
> So if we make it an optional argument of 'make-thread', and the default 
> is for thread's buffer to be killable, that might call for a name change 
> (flipping the meaning).
> 
> Should it be
> 
>    (make-thread FUNCTION &optional NAME BUFFER-PROTECTED)
> 
> ?

I'd prefer to call that argument BUFFER-DISPOSITION.

Previous Next

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