bug#46397: 27.1; Cannot delete buffer pointing to a file in a path that includes a file

[Matt Armstrong]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Matt Armstrong <matt@rfc20.org>
>> Cc: 46397@debbugs.gnu.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, craven@gmx.net
>> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 11:10:45 -0800
>> 
>> I'm coming to the opinion that issuing a prompt from `unlock-buffer'
>> itself is a bad idea, but I think prompting from `kill-buffer' is
>> okay.
>
> What do you propose to do for all the other users of unlock-buffer?

They continue to signal errors.

I would be happy to send a list of reasons why I think this is a safer
thing to do than prompting.  (reasons that I admit I could be misguided)


>> I could write a whole essay about why, but instead I'll just
>> propose the following and ask for your thoughts:
>> 
>>  (a) Modify `kill-buffer' to call `unlock-buffer' sooner, closer to the
>>      point where it is already running hooks prompting the user.
>
> Why do we need to move the call?  Can we leave it in its current
> place, and thus minimize potential unintended problems this could
> cause?

In part because `kill-buffer' currently calls `unlock-buffer' after this
comment:

  /* We have no more questions to ask.  Verify that it is valid
     to kill the buffer.  This must be done after the questions
     since anything can happen within do_yes_or_no_p.  */

(This class of problem is also one of the reasons for my answer above.)