Subject: Re: 23.3; save-buffer messages about writing files that may not be written

From: Dave Abrahams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 16:51:48 -0400

on Sun Jul 03 2011, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi-AT-gnus.org> wrote:

> Dave Abrahams <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Yes... until `save-buffer' calls `basic-save-buffer' which invokes
>> `write-file-functions', one of which decides to override the notion of
>> "modified-ness" when it ascertains that the contents have not actually
>> changed.  So modp tells the truth at the time it's checked, but IMO it's
>> checked too early.
>
> Right.  So perhaps `basic-save-buffer-2' is the right place to output
> the message?  I've grepped through the .el files, and there doesn't seem
> to be any other callers other than the straight line down from
> `save-buffer'.
>
> Opinions, anybody?

To be ridiculously general, we could observe that some
`write-file-functions' probably /do/ write the file (their own way)
before returning non-nil, and in those cases, the message is
appropriate.  So we could say that a `write-file-function' can return a
special symbol like `not-really-modified' or `do-not-write' to suppress
the message.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com