From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kevin Rodgers Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should killing a help or compile buffer also delete the window? Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:22:30 -0600 Message-ID: References: <87is2c7mnx.fsf@brockman.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1114449967 16149 80.91.229.2 (25 Apr 2005 17:26:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:26:07 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 25 19:26:04 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DQ7Jc-0007XS-UJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:24:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DQ7PB-0004Jt-No for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:29:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DQ7Nr-0003vZ-Ip for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:28:35 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DQ7Nq-0003vD-EZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:28:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DQ7Nq-0003n0-4m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:28:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA:16) (Exim 4.34) id 1DQ7Mx-00059L-Qf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:27:40 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DQ7Dw-0006fI-2l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:18:20 +0200 Original-Received: from 207.167.42.60 ([207.167.42.60]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:18:20 +0200 Original-Received: from ihs_4664 by 207.167.42.60 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:18:20 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 41 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.167.42.60 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041105) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <87is2c7mnx.fsf@brockman.se> 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:36376 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:36376 Daniel Brockman wrote: > I've always found it annoying that Emacs seems to have a habit of > leaving junk windows around whenever you invoke something that needs > to display information in a temporary buffer. I think it just gives a > really sloppy impression, especially when you aren't used to it. > Two of the most common examples might be `M-x compile' and `C-h f'. > It also happens with things like `M-x grep' and `M-x locate'. > > I realize that you can't expect Emacs to know when you are done with a > window unless you actually tell when. The obvious way to tell when is > to type `C-x 1' or `C-x 0', but this leaves the temporary buffer > lingering, which makes me nervous. > > When I was new to Emacs, I would always kill a garbage buffer before > deleting its temporary window. Eventually, I discovered `C-x 4 0' and > started using that. As time went by (and I got lazier), I gradually > began to accept the fact that you really can't avoid having a bunch of > old garbage buffers unless you spend a lot of time chasing them down, > so I started just doing `C-x 1', though it always made me feel dirty. > > Now to the point of this message. Some time ago I started using > Dictionary Mode[1], which has caused me to once again pick up the > habit of killing temporary buffers. As you might know, killing a > dictionary buffer automatically kills the window as well, unless the > window was already there when the dictionary buffer was created. > This makes a lot of sense to me --- so much sense that the normal > Emacs behavior has once again started to annoy me. > > I believe the Right Thing to do when the user kills a temporary buffer > whose window was created as a side-effect of displaying the buffer in > question is to restore the old window configuration. At least when > the automatically created window hasn't been used for anything else, > Emacs should take the hint and get the window out of the user's face. Have you tried displaying those temporary buffers each in its own frame, via special-display-buffer-names (or special-display-regexps)? That frame's sole window is dedicated to the buffer, and so killing the buffer deletes the frame. -- Kevin Rodgers