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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #95 received at 76969 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Spencer Baugh <sbaugh <at> janestreet.com>
Cc: dmitry <at> gutov.dev, 76969 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#76969: kill-buffer fails silently when a thread exists
 where it's current
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 09:42:24 +0300

> From: Spencer Baugh <sbaugh <at> janestreet.com>
> Cc: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>,  76969 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:41:42 -0400
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> 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?

Previous Next

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