From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Matt Armstrong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Allow controlling the effect of visibility on buffer switching Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 19:18:44 -0800 Message-ID: <87o83xeui3.fsf@rfc20.org> References: <87a6fi3lrl.fsf@gmail.com> <83a6fihbeb.fsf@gnu.org> <877dam38zr.fsf@gmail.com> <8335lah77y.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="16993"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii , Thuna Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 27 04:19:35 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nCvJv-0004HG-22 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 04:19:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51422 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCvJt-0001L8-GO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 22:19:33 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:40380) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCvJK-0000eg-Rh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 22:18:58 -0500 Original-Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.194]:59855) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCvJI-0004Xc-9y; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 22:18:58 -0500 Original-Received: (Authenticated sender: matt@rfc20.org) by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B37740002; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 03:18:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rfc20.org; s=gm1; t=1643253528; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=0C+NVQ76JLOoLYmzDExS1wU7XvNg0k//YV4d05skRqc=; b=cFEGW0r65dRTTggiCQJaZ8u1w+sz0WgkkCbg1e/BV8TdpnABigg1KoQ3/Cu1WPOQBqTGKE XuuqDG0UcNWoqQpq8GQe3fEnaQUVrizb4Ik45YVOyEcJvBeN+GXfRK4STh2IsN0LxCMpLq p33SkxccSjvrNZq1IITycUKJHTRI0xU23eQRq1gwwHezjjoHeDrQnc7sBp9fJ+Q3hPLQpT hk9uxaufKHoWscHqhC2g+MZ5J02BdfzfRFBQdNaXAB05HuqQjyywnh/I/OehryZhapCasH 3c/QlnQD9HR41mxa993X89QGn3Q6g7er54minBzXl3wb521La6M1wxtQ9fRzAw== Original-Received: from matt by naz with local (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1nCvJ6-001qWb-Kr; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 19:18:44 -0800 In-Reply-To: <8335lah77y.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.70.183.194; envelope-from=matt@rfc20.org; helo=relay2-d.mail.gandi.net X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:285467 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Thuna >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 16:46:32 +0300 >> >> >> > Thanks, but why do we need such an option, given that we have >> > buffer-change history, and so the visible buffers are usually just a >> > couple of keystrokes away, like M-n? >> >> If a buffer is open in multiple windows and one of these windows is >> momentarily switched off of to look at something else, it is unintuitive >> for buffer switching to default to a non-visible buffer instead of the >> previously open buffer. More often than not, a quick [C-x b RET] is, >> and should be, sufficient for switching buffers. Forcing the user to >> actively choose the buffer they want introduces unnecessary burden which >> can be a significant source of distraction over time. > > Forcing users to learn too many options is also not a very good idea, > and we already have gobs of them. So much so that even the head > maintainers don't remember that many of them exist. > > So I'm asking whether "C-x b M-n RET" is not a good enough solution > for this use case? Does anyone else have an opinion? I might be one person that at least tries this patch out, but I think it would take me a while to figure out if I like it. In 25 years I haven't picked up on the idea that C-x b RET could be a quick "get me back to the previous buffer" habbit, probably because it doesn't always work. I sometimes keep multiple frames open and forget what is going on in the other frame. In this disorganized state, the "Buffers not visible in windows are preferred to visible buffers" feature just means Emacs acts strangely. I sometimes split a frame to look at different parts of the same buffer. This changes what C-x b RET does. Thuna, have you used this patch for a while and found it to your liking?