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.
>
>