[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Stephen J. Turnbull
Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:52:52 +0900
Drew Adams writes:
> Let me summarize the current state of the discussion and my
1 & 2 omitted.
> 3. Emacs 23 always returns nil. Dunno what the case was before
> 23. I don't have a problem with it always returning nil.
> I did suggest that we might instead return something indicating
> whether a window was actually deleted, similarly to how
> `kill-buffer' lets you know whether it killed the buffer. But this
> suggestion is not so important.
My personal preference here is no; code that doesn't accept the
possibility of a dead window error should check window-live-p. But
the analogy with kill-buffer is appropriate. So I guess that's a -0.
> 5. Raising an error for a string that does not name an existing
> buffer is wrong, IMO. No other opinions expressed about this, so far.
AFAICS such a string is a programming error, because (as you've
pointed out yourself) interactively the user must specify an existing
buffer. Such errors should be raised as early as possible.
If you have a use case, please specify it. For now, I'm strongly in
favor of raising an error.
> 6. I suggested that for interactive use the completion candidates
> be limited to buffers that actually have windows. No other
> opinions expressed about this, so far.
+0.5. I'm not sure it's worth the programming effort, but I see no
harm in it.
Re: delete-windows-on, martin rudalics, 2009/10/02