Re: Buffer listing in multiple frames/ttys

[lorentey@elte.hu (Lőrentey Károly)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1611 bytes --]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
> The default ordering is chronological, so, yes, the most recent
> buffer is always first. The relative order of the other buffers is
> not changed, however (currently).
>
> Your reordering goes beyond that - the change in order is confusing,
> unless one is thinking in terms of multiple buffers per frame and
> one knows about the new behavior. 

Well, if there is any change in the relative order, then that implies
that the frames sometimes change what buffer they display.  The
`buffer-list' frame parameter contains a chronological list of buffers
that were ever displayed in the frame.  The new code will not change
the relative order of buffers in *Buffer List* unless this list has
more than one entry.  But that would imply that the user does use
multiple buffers per frame, so arguably the new code can be useful.
How about that! :-)

I think we have spent too much time on this.  I agree that there is no
point in having frame-local buffer lists when pop-up-frames is set to
t, so I propose in that case we continue to use the global
buffer-list, as before.  However, the frame-local version does have
important benefits for the "thematic frame" people and when there are
multiple terminals, so let's keep it enabled when pop-up-frames is not
set.

> That means that the new behavior would need to be documented
> explicitly, or else people will not understand what they see.

I will do that, of course.

> Given that, I can't say I'm annoyed by your change. I was thinking
> of the (imagined) need to re-sort.

So, should I apply this patch or not? :-)


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1027 bytes --]

Index: buff-menu.el
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/emacs/emacs/lisp/buff-menu.el,v
retrieving revision 1.95
diff -u -3 -p -r1.95 buff-menu.el
*** buff-menu.el	28 Nov 2005 14:36:06 -0000	1.95
--- buff-menu.el	29 Nov 2005 09:48:51 -0000
***************
*** 722,728 ****
  				   (if (memq c '(?\n ?\s)) c underline))
  				 header)))))
        ;; Collect info for every buffer we're interested in.
!       (dolist (buffer (or buffer-list (buffer-list (selected-frame))))
  	(with-current-buffer buffer
  	  (let ((name (buffer-name))
  		(file buffer-file-name))
--- 722,731 ----
  				   (if (memq c '(?\n ?\s)) c underline))
  				 header)))))
        ;; Collect info for every buffer we're interested in.
!       (dolist (buffer (or buffer-list
! 			  ;; Use the frame-local list when it makes sense.
! 			  (buffer-list (and (not pop-up-frames)
! 					    (selected-frame)))))
  	(with-current-buffer buffer
  	  (let ((name (buffer-name))
  		(file buffer-file-name))

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 601 bytes --]


> [However, I have my own extension to the column-sorting that adds a
> Time column, which shows the `buffer-display-time'. If I sort on
> that column, will I need to re-sort? I don't know - is
> `buffer-display-time' what is used in your ordering? That's what my
> "Time" column uses.]

No, Emacs simply uses the above mentioned frame parameter together
with the global list to generate the frame-local ordering---it doesn't
mess with the recorded display time for this.

Therefore, I think that using the frame-local buffer-list should not
affect your sorting results.

-- 
Károly

[-- Attachment #4: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel