* lisp/bookmark.el (bookmark-bmenu-save): Just depend on the new logic

for showing buffer modified state (as added in the previous change).
This commit is contained in:
Karl Fogel 2010-01-02 13:57:02 -05:00
parent 85eeac935f
commit cc4d3cad09
2 changed files with 8 additions and 15 deletions

View file

@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
2010-01-02 Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>
* bookmark.el (bookmark-bmenu-save): Just depend on the new logic
for showing buffer modified state (as added in the previous change).
2010-01-02 Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>
* bookmark.el: Show modified state of bookmark buffer more accurately.
@ -6,7 +11,7 @@
(with-buffer-modified-unmodified): New macro.
(bookmark-bmenu-show-filenames, bookmark-bmenu-hide-filenames)
(bookmark-bmenu-mark, bookmark-bmenu-unmark, bookmark-bmenu-delete):
Use new macro to preserve the buffer-modified state.
Use new macro to preserve the buffer modified state.
2010-01-02 Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>

View file

@ -1818,20 +1818,8 @@ With a prefix arg, prompts for a file to save them in."
(interactive "P")
(save-excursion
(save-window-excursion
(bookmark-save parg)))
;; Show the buffer as unmodified after saving, but only if there are
;; no marks: marks are not saved with the bookmarks, therefore from
;; the user's point of view they are a "modification" in the buffer
;;
;; FIXME: Ideally, if the buffer were unmodified when there are no
;; marks, and then some marks are made and removed without being
;; executed, then the buffer would be restored to unmodified state.
;; But that would require bookmark-specific logic to track buffer
;; modification. It might be worth it, but it's fine not to have it
;; too -- the worst outcome is that the user might be tempted to
;; save the bookmark list when it technically doesn't need saving.
(if (not (bookmark-bmenu-any-marks))
(set-buffer-modified-p nil)))
(bookmark-save parg)
(set-buffer-modified-p nil))))
(defun bookmark-bmenu-load ()