Re: Missing `with' macro?

[Richard Stallman]

    > Yes, I think so.  If it is unlikely that users will edit the file by
    > hand, that means there is unlikely to be a buffer to reuse.  But IF
    > there is a buffer to reuse, it means the user edited the file by hand.
    > When he does so, you should not save his changes without his ok!

    It means the user -visited- the file explicitly.  He may or may not have
    been interested in changing it by hand.  I don't know, however, if this
    distinction is important.

If he didn't decide to change it by hand, then either (1) the buffer
is unmodified, or (2) he changed it unwittingly.

    Aha -- perhaps there's a good "compromise" here.  What if REUSE is treated
    as nil if the extant buffer is modified and WRITE is non-nil?

It would work, but getting rid of the REUSE argument is much better
because it makes this macro simpler to use.

    Should I add a note that the user's buffer can become outdated as a result
    of failed or unattempted reuse of it?

No need.  There are lots of ways a file could be changed on disk while
it is visited in an Emacs buffer; there is no particular reason to
distinguish this way from all the rest.