From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Scratch buffer annoyance Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:02:12 -0400 Message-ID: References: <85ejinrqgk.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <35917.128.165.123.18.1185998078.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> <85vebzq7vd.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87odhqethv.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87zm18v7ug.fsf@jurta.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1186178604 15806 80.91.229.12 (3 Aug 2007 22:03:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 22:03:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juri Linkov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 04 00:03:21 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IH5Es-0006xu-Vc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:03:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IH5Eq-0006DL-8S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:03:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IH5C0-0003ep-N7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:00:21 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IH5Bw-0003XZ-R0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:00:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IH5Bw-0003Wq-Jx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:00:16 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IH5Bq-0000Mt-4x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:00:10 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IH5Do-0008Ew-Kz; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:02:12 -0400 In-reply-to: <87zm18v7ug.fsf@jurta.org> (message from Juri Linkov on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:16:07 +0300) X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:76014 Archived-At: > A string is a file name to visit. Then there is no distinction between file and directory names, but maybe this is not needed provided that this string is always used as an argument of `find-file'. Exactly. > A symbol that's a command is an initial major mode for *scratch*. There is already a user option `initial-major-mode' that defines an initial major mode for *scratch*. Using two user options for the same setting would be confusing. We could alias this variable to `initial-major-mode', or we could say that t means use a *scratch* buffer. > It does what we want and it is clear. Neither a string or a major mode makes it clear what the value is used for. So what? That's what the doc string is for. And I don't know what a variable name would be suitable for this option. `initial-buffer-contents' seems good. If an idea of setting this option to a function call like (switch-to-buffer "*scratch*") is not acceptable (maybe this fits better to adding such a funcall to a hook variable), then what is wrong with using self-explanatory values like (buffer "foo") or (file "~/bar")? This complexity is unnecessary.