On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 12:16 PM Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> wrote:
> > Thanks in advance! > Do note that we still cannot blindly replace every instance of > buffer-file-name with the new function. At least a cursory case-by-case > check is necessary to make sure that logic will not be broken.] Understood, that's clear to me. I plan on making the common function something that will resolve the buffer filename whether the buffer is direct or indirect. For the case of a new Org buffer I'm not sure what I can return other than nil. For functions that require a filename, I think we'll have to evaluate those on a case-by-case basis and figure out if we can provide a helper/wrapper that can simplify error reporting when a filename is required. Where would be the best place to put the `org-base-buffer-file-name` function? Thanks, Derek -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Derek Chen-Becker | | GPG Key available at https://keybase.io/dchenbecker and | | https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=derek%40chen-becker.org | | Fngrprnt: EB8A 6480 F0A3 C8EB C1E7 7F42 AFC5 AFEE 96E4 6ACC | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
