[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: point of "buffer still has clients" message

From: Ian van der Neut
Subject: Re: point of "buffer still has clients" message
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:42:31 +0100

For what it's worth, my use case where I run into this message is as

I have a function:

(defun kill-buffer-delete-frame ()
  "Kill the current buffer and delete the frame its in."
  (if (kill-buffer) (delete-frame))

And a key bound to it:
(global-set-key (kbd "C-c c") 'kill-buffer-delete-frame)

I run into this message, seemingly unnecessary when I want to kill the
buffer and close the frame it's in. should I call server-edit somewhere in
that function to get rid of it? From the server-edit documentation it seems
that it only kills the buffer if it didn't exist when loaded with
emacsclient. I run emacsclient primarily with the --no-wait option btw,

Thank you,


On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Jarek Czekalski

> W dniu 2013-11-26 16:55, Barry Margolin pisze:
>  When you have EDITOR set to most editors, the client starts a new editor
>> process, you edit the file, save it, and then exit the editor. The
>> client waits for the editor to exit, then it will use the result.
>> But when you use emacsclient, it's not so simple. Emacs keeps on running
>> after you save the file. Emacsclient is waiting for a message from emacs
>> telling it that it you're done, so it should exit, and then its client
>> application can use the result. You do this with the server-edit (C-x #)
>> command.
> Barry, that definitely helps to understand the idea. But still it's not
> clear why the things done in server-edit command couldn't be done during
> kill-buffer. The user request is "close the file". They shouldn't have to
> choose between server-edit and kill-buffer.
> The user experience is as follows:
> 1. a shortcut is bound to kill-this-buffer
> 2. a buffer is edited throught emacsclient
> 3. user wants to kill the buffer with the shortcut he always uses for that
> or using "File / Close" menu option
> So far you both didn't give any justification for the confirmation
> message. If things stay this way we should assume that this message is
> unnecessary and should be removed.
> Jarek

One man's "magic" is another man's engineering. "Supernatural" is a null
-- Excerpt from the notebooks of Lazarus Long, from Robert Heinlein's "Time
Enough for Love"

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]