Re: address@hidden: Wrong behavior of bs-delete, bs-delete-backward if buffer is not actually killed]

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:30:54 -0500, "Stefan Monnier" 
<monnier+gnu/address@hidden> wrote:

> I'm not 100% sure about the change to bs-delete-backward: maybe bs-delete
> should return a success/failure code so that we don't need to infer the
> result with (eq current (bs--current-buffer)).

I would have done that in my patch if the status of the deletion were
more generally used/useful; but bs-delete is a user-level, interactive
function. Returning a code for another interactive function to test
seemed wrong to me; before going that route, I think it'd be better to
extract the buffer-deletion functionality to an auxiliary routine to
be used by both delete functions instead of preserving the call to
bs-delete from bs-delete-backward.

> Or maybe we should simply do (error "Buffer was not deleted")
> instead of (bs-message-without-log "Buffer was not deleted").

Why?

                                                           /L/e/k/t/u