Matthieu Moy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mark Triggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Yep, this sounds like a good idea. We would still need to deal with the >> case where the user goes ahead and closes the buffer anyway > > I'd like something like > > A tla process is running in this buffer. Kill anyway? (y, n, k, ?) > > With the binding: > > y => just kill the buffer normally > n => don't do anything > k => kill both the buffer and the processes running in it > ? => This help message. > (and why not another key to open the log buffer)
I like the sound of this (although I would probably swap 'y' and 'k' so 'y' kills the buffer and the process). Do we have any way of knowing whether a buffer currently has a process associated with it? For example if I start a "tla-missing" and four tla processes get spawned, is there any way of knowing that those four processes correspond to the *tla-missing* buffer? This still doesn't quite stop the problem of the user killing the buffer but not the corresponding process (although it makes it less likely). Removing the (with-current-buffer ..) from TLA--RUN-TLA-ASYNC and relying on process handlers to manage their own buffers still seems to be the only reliable way to stop these problems. Mark -- Mark Triggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
