From: Zachary Kanfer <zkanfer@gmail.com>
To: Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>
Cc: 9761@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#9761: proposed list-buffers change -- revert buffer if point is in *Buffer List* buffer
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:00:55 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFXT+RPruLCR9OZp1K6ZCkLkzAPVh_xDdMoFCCD_M7zDeN-jXA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r52e89di.fsf@stupidchicken.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1496 bytes --]
I agree -- less surprising is better. To me, that means *not* moving point
when it's called again. It makes it easier for the user to answer the
question "what's changed?", which, at least for me, is a common question
when I already have a buffer list window open. Would you be in favor of this
change if I can use Martin's suggestion so that the behavior is the same no
matter if point is in the Buffer List buffer or not?
You are right, though -- the user can call revert-buffer (which is bound to
'g' in Buffer Menu mode) if desired. But for calling `list-buffers', I think
that for the vast majority of cases, keeping point where it is is either
superior to putting it at the bottom, or just as good. I can't think of too
many cases where moving point to the bottom of the buffer is better.
-Zachary
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> wrote:
> Zachary Kanfer <zkanfer@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > The command list-buffers always puts point at the end of the
> > buffer. This patch changes the list-buffers command to simply revert
> > the buffer if point is inside the *Buffer List* buffer. Since point is
> > kept at the same line, the user can more easily see what changes have
> > occurred.
>
> This doesn't seem like a good idea. It is better for `list-buffers' to
> behave as unsurprisingly as possible, i.e. regardless of whether it's
> called from a buffer list.
>
> After all, the user can always call revert-buffer if that's what's
> desired.
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1918 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-15 18:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-15 4:22 bug#9761: proposed list-buffers change -- revert buffer if point is in *Buffer List* buffer Zachary Kanfer
2011-10-15 10:27 ` martin rudalics
2011-10-15 17:14 ` Chong Yidong
2011-10-15 18:00 ` Zachary Kanfer [this message]
2011-10-16 15:50 ` Stefan Monnier
2011-12-10 6:48 ` Zachary Kanfer
2016-02-25 6:40 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAFXT+RPruLCR9OZp1K6ZCkLkzAPVh_xDdMoFCCD_M7zDeN-jXA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=zkanfer@gmail.com \
--cc=9761@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=cyd@stupidchicken.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).