Re: 22.1.90; desktop-save throws (error "No buffer named <uniquified buffername>")

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Actually, any use of the "base name" will be uniquify-specific as well,
>> so I'll still say "Yuck!".

> Well, I'm trying to fix a problem derived of the interaction of
> uniquify and desktop, so using uniquify-specific info seems
> unavoidable.

Yes, that's what I figured as well, which is why I think it's fine to do
it, but only if the interface between the two is made cleaner.

>> Indeed for uniquified buffers, you should only [need to] save the
>> base-name to disk, so there's no need to change the disk representation
>> of your data.

> The "base name" and the buffer name are two different pieces of info;
> even if no uniquify is present, it would be perhaps interesting to
> know (and save) whether "my-buffer<2>" is called so by user fiat or
> via rename-buffer's UNIQUE argument; but that is not needed right now.

> Anyway. Does this version lessen your yucky factor somewhat?

Yes, very much so.

> +(defun uniquify-buffer-base-name ()
> +  "Return the base name of the current buffer."
> +  (and (bound-and-true-p uniquify-managed)
> +       (uniquify-item-base (car uniquify-managed))))

There's a (defvar uniquify-managed nil ...) earlier in that file, so you
shouldn't need the `bound-and-true-p', just use

   (defun uniquify-buffer-base-name ()
     "Return the base name of the current buffer.
   Return nil if the buffer is not managed by uniquify."
     (and uniquify-managed
          (uniquify-item-base (car uniquify-managed))))


-- Stefan