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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #86 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: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 14:36:52 +0300

> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 04:39:33 +0300
> Cc: sbaugh <at> janestreet.com, 76969 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
> 
> On 22/07/2025 15:54, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> I had to google it just now. A term from POSIX signals?

Or from email messages.

> Makes certain sense.
> 
> Seems like the default value would have to be nil, though, if it's 
> passed as an optional argument to a function.

Yes.  But given that this isn't a simple boolean, what it means when
disposition = nil is open to interpretation, and the doc string should
say clearly what that means.

> 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.

Previous Next

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