daniela-s...@gmx.it writes: > Can't one throw a capture abort signal instead?
Sure, that is possible. However, consider a possibility that some external package wants to detect when capture is aborted. If I was writing such package, I would need to do something like (condition-case err <run capture> (t <work around the "Abort" error>)) If org-capture is rewritten using catch-throw, the above code would be broken. Also, there will be no easy way for a user to know if the capture was completed successfully or if it was aborted. Note that I do not oppose this change too firmly. I agree that throw (or even just normal exit) would be cleaner. However, changing user-error to throw may break external packages and should be considered carefully. On the other hand, user-error is internal detail of the implementation. So, changing it should not be a big deal. As a precaution, it can be announced and implemented as a part of major release. If you want this change to happen, I suggest to provide the patch. This will encourage the maintainers to provide feedback. > What case scenarios would rely > on user quitting capture rather than going ahead with an entry? For example, I have a custom capture function from email. The email is removed from inbox upon capture. However, I would not want to proceed with removal if capture is aborted for whatever reason. Best, Ihor