Re: master 048e72a403e 1/2: Add file/buffer-to-register (Bug#73308)

[Barra Ó Catháin]

Looks nice to me; the binding I was trying to do was mostly because I
didn't actually require a match in read-buffer, and read-buffer returns
a string. It looks silly because it was silly; as you have done here,
should have just gotten a buffer in the first place! (the only
difference in functionality would be the ability to specify a buffer
that isn't currently open. Being that this is mostly going to be used
interactively... just open a buffer :P)

I'm personally happy enough with how it behaves now. Thanks for your
help!

Thanks,
-----
Barra

Eshel Yaron <me@eshelyaron.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Barra Ó Catháin <barra@ocathain.ie> writes:
>
>> D'oh! You're absolutely correct. I've attached a patch containing a fix
>> for exactly this; adds a check to see if buffer is currently alive,
>> and uses with-current-buffer to ensure that it's adding to the correct
>> one.
>
> Thanks!  I've applied your patch (with a minor tweak to the commit
> message) in commit c0f10fc3d48.  I then followed up with a couple of
> small refinements in commit 6a272dedad3It.  I mostly improved the
> docstring and the minibuffer prompts, but note that I removed the
> (let ((buffer (or (get-buffer buffer) buffer))) ...) binding: it only
> has any effect if BUFFER is a string, which it isn't, it's a buffer.
> Let me know if I misread something.
>
>> Let me know if I should send this somewhere else; I'm still
>> learning mailing list development etiquette.
>
> This is fine for such a follow up, I think.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Eshel