From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Buffer listing in multiple frames/ttys Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:43:59 +0200 Organization: JURTA Message-ID: <87lkyrw23s.fsf@jurta.org> References: <87wtinrypp.fsf@jurta.org> <87u0dqm5ta.fsf@jurta.org> <87pso9wvjo.fsf@jurta.org> <87d5k770y4.fsf@jurta.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1134378844 30494 80.91.229.2 (12 Dec 2005 09:14:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:14:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 12 10:14:02 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eljka-0002e0-Ov for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:13:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eljix-0002Nk-Km for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 04:12:00 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EliZX-0001lo-TH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 02:58:12 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EliZK-0001aZ-Dp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 02:58:10 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EliZJ-0001Za-NX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 02:57:57 -0500 Original-Received: from [194.126.101.111] (helo=mail.neti.ee) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Eliaq-0002HO-Df; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 02:59:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.neti.ee (80-235-33-123-dsl.mus.estpak.ee [80.235.33.123]) by Relayhost1.neti.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07B9B1CE0; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:57:26 +0200 (EET) Original-To: lorentey@elte.hu (=?utf-8?Q?K=C3=A1roly_L=C5=91rentey?=) In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?K=C3=A1roly=09L=C5=91rentey's?= message of "Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:53:21 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.2.1 (20041222) (Debian) at neti.ee X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:47531 Archived-At: > Below is an updated version of the patch without such low-level > changes. If people find no problems, I'll install it on the CVS > trunk. I've tested your new version with Lisp changes (for the trunk). I think it is very good that you still use the new frame parameter at Lisp level in next-buffer/previous-buffer. At least this will produce correct results while cycling buffers only with next-buffer/previous-buffer. In some packages next-buffer could be even used as a replacement of `q' sometimes. I still have mixed feelings about changing the default behavior of next-buffer/previous-buffer to always visit visible buffers (i.e. using the argument `visible-ok'). I don't know what is more preferable. When I have the same buffer in two window initially, then I wish next-buffer and subsequent previous-buffer return to the same buffer. When initially there are two different buffers in two windows, then it's better to ignore visible-ok. Maybe there should be two separate command for every direction: `next-buffer' and `next-visible-buffer', `previous-buffer' and `previous-visible-buffer'? -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/