Re: address@hidden: modeline doesn't divulge buffer will go bye bye]

[Stefan Monnier]

> >         The most important thing, the fact that this buffer will go
> >         bye bye without a trace is not mentioned there!
> 
> address@hidden is persuading me that this is a non-issue.
> 
>     ... most non-file buffer names created automatically by various
>     packages start (and end) with an asterisk.  So for such buffers,
>     there typically already is a visible difference in the mode-line.
> 
>     The problem is with buffers which the user creates explicitly. ... 
> 
> Do people often create buffers when they mean to create files?  I
> don't know.  But I don't think people make the mistake very often.
> 
> As RMS says:
> 
>     ... But the problem (if it is a problem) is with users who don't
>     understand the difference.  In order to teach people to look for a
>     small indicator of the difference, we need to first teach them the
>     difference.
> 
> I agree.  My suggestion, a small indicator, is no good. 
> 
> Maybe this really is not a problem.  Let's see what others say.  The
> best move may be to do nothing.

Maybe we could consider the "buffer with no file" in a similar way
as some GUI text processors treat (unsaved) new documents.

So maybe we could try to mark those buffers by appending
something like "[not saved]" on the mode line.  Of course,
there's still the problem of recognizing those buffers.  Maybe

  (not (or buffer-file-name
           (string-match "\\`[ *]" (buffer-name))
           dont-say-not-saved-in-the-mode-line))

would be good enough ?


        Stefan