Re: Emacs bug 37890; killing capture buffer

[Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>]

Adam Porter <adam@alphapapa.net> writes:

> Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de> writes:
>
> > Or (really better IMHO) consider a different implementation where the
> > original buffer is not modified until the user explicitly confirms the
> > stuff to capture with C-c C-c.
>
> That would be helpful in some ways, but harmful in others.  For example,
> consider a capture that is started while in a meeting, on a phone call,
> away from one's desk, etc., with some notes in it, clock start time,
> etc.  (You can find examples of this workflow in, e.g. Bernt Hansen's
> Org config.)  If Emacs were interrupted (crash, power failure, reboot,
> etc), the un-finalized capture would still be present in the auto-save
> file and could be recovered when restarting Emacs and finding the file
> again.

A legitimate objection.

> The way Org uses indirect, narrowed buffers for capturing is an
> elegant use of Emacs features that helps protect user data from
> accidental loss.

Let me rethink from the other side: how could the issue I described
(globbered org file) be prevented?  If you happen to kill the capture
buffer or forget about it, is there any indication left that there is a
problem?  A modified buffer visiting the org file is left, but as soon
as you successfully capture something else Org happily saves both edits
to the file.

So maybe we could prevent the user from doing something wrong?  Maybe
like this:

 - kill-buffer-hook in the capture buffer could be used to prevent the
 user from killing such a buffer by accident.  Or it could be made
 configurable what to do (e.g. undo the change with or without user
 prompting, ask for what to do, etc.)

 - kill-emacs-hook could be used to register a function that warns when
 any capture buffers are left when Emacs is to be killed.  That would
 make a difference if you have captured more stuff after having
 forgotten about a former capture buffer.  The user would be guided to
 finish what he would otherwise have forgotten.

That would improve security even further without getting in the way in
the normal workflow.


Michael.