From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#11298: Recipe to surface *code-conversion-work* buffer Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:39:25 +0200 Message-ID: <4F9690ED.4020905@gmx.at> References: <81397xm657.fsf@gmail.com> <817gx5iehn.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1335267674 5541 80.91.229.3 (24 Apr 2012 11:41:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:41:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 11298@debbugs.gnu.org To: Jambunathan K Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 24 13:41:14 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SMe7N-0003l4-0T for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:41:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35196 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SMe7L-0007ys-RX for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:41:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54414) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SMe6z-0007h9-71 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:41:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SMe6R-0005pb-G8 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:40:48 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:49146) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SMe6R-0005p0-Cy for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:40:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SMe7B-00034t-Pl for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:41:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:41:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 11298 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 11298-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B11298.133526762511790 (code B ref 11298); Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:41:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 11298) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Apr 2012 11:40:25 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50180 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SMe6b-000347-3C for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:40:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:36996) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SMe6Y-00033s-HV for 11298@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:40:23 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2012 11:39:28 -0000 Original-Received: from 62-47-61-172.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.61.172]) [62.47.61.172] by mail.gmx.net (mp034) with SMTP; 24 Apr 2012 13:39:28 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18YtF5Oj+EYRDrdftgiLBN+f5YMX1vOxy7RhCzZ1Q xEXNFUhlj8CJP0 In-Reply-To: <817gx5iehn.fsf@gmail.com> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:59438 Archived-At: >> This is my little excursion in to killing *scratch* (to death?) > > Now I am wondering whether: > 1. *scratch* buffer re-generates itself It does because Emacs needs at least one buffer it can display. > 2. Why some buffers like *code-conversion-work* (and other internal > buffers like "Minibuf", "Echo Area") gets /surfaced/ in some buffer > listings, but totally disappears in the next buffer listing. Usually they are not displayed because their names start with a space. > For want of better place to put this, I am attaching it to *scratch* > buffer bug report. > > Read on. > > Steps to reproduce: > ------------------ > > 1. Emacs -Q > 2. C-x b TAB gives me > ,---- > | Click on a completion to select it. > | In this buffer, type RET to select the completion near point. > | > | Possible completions are: > | *Messages* > `---- > 3. C-g. Now you are in *scratch* > 4. Kill *scratch* => *Messages* shows up > 5. Kill *Messages* => *Completions* shows up > 6. Kill *Completions* => *scratch* shows up > > Now I get confused. Why does *scratch* show up again. Didn't I kill > it before? Because when you killed the last other buffer whose name didn't start with a space, *scratch* got regenerated. > 7. C-x b TAB TAB gets me this > ,---- > | Click on a completion to select it. > | In this buffer, type RET to select the completion near point. > | > | Possible completions are: > | *Echo Area 0* *Echo Area 1* > | *Minibuf-0* *Minibuf-1* > | *code-conversion-work* > `---- > > I choose to examine *code-conversion-work*. The name seems > interesting. This is what I see there when I visit it: > > ,---- > | c:/Program Files/emacs-24.0.95/lisp/emacs-lisp/easymenu.elc > `---- > Usually, buffers whose names start with a space are not proposed. But since you killed all other buffers what do you want Emacs to propose? > 8. C-x b TAB now shows > ,---- > | Click on a completion to select it. > | In this buffer, type RET to select the completion near point. > | > | Possible completions are: > | *Completions* > | *Messages* > | *scratch* > `---- > > Note that special buffers that show up in step 7 has disappeared. Because these buffer have been recreated in the meantime. Is there anything bad about the behavior you observed? martin