Masatake YAMATO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I considered the same thing :o) My only concern is that this sort of >> nondeterminism isn't all that helpful to people writing process >> handlers. I mean, having something in the docs like "your process >> handler *might* be executed in the buffer the process was called from" >> would mean that the caller would still have to check which buffer they >> were in. >> >> I can't really think of a sensible default buffer... maybe we shouldn't >> encourage people to assume their handler will be executed in any >> particular buffer. Any ideas? > > You may mean that if you want a buffer, create it in your code. I > don't check all buffer usage in xtla, however, sometime we want to use > existing buffer in our code in stead of creating. In other hand, if an > user of xtla wants to kill the buffer, none can stop it. In such case > what we can do is just warning like: > > (add-hook 'kill-buffer-hook 'tla-warning-dont-kill-buffer)
That is a nice idea! tla-warning-dont-kill-buffer warns the user, if the tla command is still running. Otherwise it is o.k. to silently kill the buffer. -- Stefan.
