From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ernest =?iso-8859-1?Q?Adrogu=E9?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Should delete-window switch to next buffer when there is only one window? Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:19:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20140115011942.GA28697@doriath.local> References: <64e2823c-29c6-4874-b9a2-6dfa6eda4c4a@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1389748818 16889 80.91.229.3 (15 Jan 2014 01:20:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 01:20:18 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 15 02:20:23 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W3F9a-0001Gh-Uu for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:20:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51496 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W3F9a-0005Fe-Hb for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:20:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43814) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W3F9G-0005Al-2l for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:20:10 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W3F97-0004Ma-MQ for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:20:02 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]:46848) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W3F97-0004MW-G7 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:19:53 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id d13so3094042wiw.0 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:19:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=R2Aq3j/5f/vnRPmDYqisovrrPTArIj4llPpZw1YaaUI=; b=zI3PUiW6n67SCZjU+K1MN0QbNtKos0Xwku/FzJUJMBOhg9KHtZ3o+pPzrGea4Gcsd1 9rm/x6IIbfMIh9FzuOgHc0c/w9YtVI6dvSwNNU3Q2AHxAuVtZz0woN0nmJ0zoNK5yGV4 LfpHnr5vmiHq4ofGlPIkZn5W+pceu+xb0qBrzZPlLrmiMLORwBz20ZilxXtSFKmXaG9q EJsoZAukkwzTbqNhXD6OaRPEjysP7KQHgEgC5v419Pa6kgzkeSWJ5uPyqH8ryOwho47s OCN4WDldloHalmzNhosX7ZLLx671WUvtuU92SDiXNjZqiAncjMtNXdS3TddNlZwG3+AK cVqQ== X-Received: by 10.180.104.164 with SMTP id gf4mr22843866wib.35.1389748792559; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:19:52 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from doriath (31.Red-88-19-184.staticIP.rima-tde.net. [88.19.184.31]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e5sm1964806wja.15.2014.01.14.17.19.50 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:19:51 -0800 (PST) Mail-Followup-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <64e2823c-29c6-4874-b9a2-6dfa6eda4c4a@googlegroups.com> X-Operating-System: GNU/Linux (Debian jessie/sid) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:95405 Archived-At: 2014-01-14, 15:16 (-0800); Peter escriu: > No, I think it is doing the right thing. It doesn't make any sense for > YOUR code to delete the only window that exists. If it just switched > buffers (to what? what rule should apply in this case? A random buffer > selection?) then it isn't doing what you requested - which is to delete > the window. I was thinking from the user point of view. In my mental model (which maybe doesn't reflect how Emacs really works, but nonetheless) I think of windows as being stacked, and when I do C-x 0 to me is like saying send the top window to the bottom of the stack. In this context, it would make sense for C-x 0 to switch to a different buffer when there is only one window in the frame. > I think a bit more thought on your side should be applied rather than > suggesting that Emacs behaviour change to suit you. Ok, I will try to think harder before I make another suggestion. Sorry for wasting your time!