Re: PATCH: Fix IDO interaction with uniquify.el

[Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 19:56, Leo <sdl.web@googlemail.com> wrote:

> 'kill virtual buffers' means removing them from recentf-list i.e. they
> cease to be virtual buffers. So the latter.

I don't like that. Virtual buffers and recentf are different user
facilities, and the fact that virtual buffers *use* recentf is just to
simplify its implementation, IMO. Killing a virtual buffer on
ido-switch-buffer and having the file list on File / Open Recent
change seems uncalled for.

> I locally have a patch that completely handles duplicate basenames
> (about 40 lines of elisp without using caching) without using uniquify

FWIW, that's my preference. I use uniquify, but what you show in the
modeline and what you do prefer on a completion list isn't necessarily
the same thing.

> In the end we decide temporarily just adding some number
> (customisable) of parent directory. In practice one level of parent
> directory already significantly removes the chance of a file in
> recentf-list being ignored.

I don't think so. If you're editing C:/repo/trunk/lisp/bs.el and
C:/repo/emacs-23/lisp/bs.el, you'd need at least two. Why did you
choose this instead of your 40-line complete fix?

    Juanma