[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#20845: 25.0.50; bookmark.el, handling of fictitious `buffer' propert
bug#20845: 25.0.50; bookmark.el, handling of fictitious `buffer' property
Fri, 5 Jul 2019 14:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
> > It should be sufficient to communicate the buffer
> > _name_ as the property value. And that's something
> > savable and retrievable - it's useful generally.
> > IOW, it's OK to have `buffer' bookmark property,
> > but I think its value should be a buffer name.
> Would that potentially be a problem if the buffer is renamed?
Yes. But it's not much different from the problem
that arises if a file name is changed.
And no different from the case where a buffer
(not a buffer name) no longer exists (which can
happen even if a buffer object is used in a live,
not persisted, `bookmark-alist').
We can try to jump through hoops for this. It's
a choice how many hoops we want to jump through.
We could `condition-case'-handle the case where
`bookmark-default-handler' is used, and try to
deal with errors such as those. We already do
that for condition `bookmark-error-no-filename'.