Re: window-next-buffers

[Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org>]

>> Actually, I suspect it means that Yidong was right when he suggested a
>> ring.  Butnevermind....
>
> No, I was wrong: a ring isn't a good fit for the design, in which
> `switch-to-prev-buffer' (i) switches to the previous buffers displayed
> in the buffer, and (ii) after successive `switch-to-prev-buffer's reach
> the end of that list, the command moves on to other buffers in the
> buffer list which the window hadn't visited before.  If we used a ring,
> we'd never hit the end, so we'd never move on to (ii).

Then we need just one list of buffers (visited in the window)
and the pointer referencing the currently displayed buffer
(or a numeric index of the position of the currently displayed
buffer in the list of visited buffers).