Re: Emacs: Problems of the Scratch Buffer

[Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>]

"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Arguing that *scratch* should be removed entirely is a non-starter,
>> since a non-negligible portion of users find it useful, but I
>> sincerely don't see why reasonable people would want that, if we can
>> find less extreme ways of getting it out of the way of those who don't
>> need it.
>
> Actually, it's the first time I ever heard something against the
> *scratch* buffer.  But on the contrary, I've myself implemented a M-x
> scratch command and I've seen several other people asking or
> implementing it themselve, to recreate a *scratch* buffer when it has
> been accidentally killed.

M-x emacs-lock-mode RET

Increasingly, I am feeling the need for multiple scratch buffers.  By
default, my scratch buffer is in emacs-lisp mode.  Some times, I switch
that scratch buffer to Org-mode when I create lists, tables or just
copy-paste some plain text from interwebs purely for reasons of
wrapping/filling.

1. Allow multiple scratch buffers one for each mode the user is
   interested in.  The defcustom can have a solitary text-mode entry.  A
   user wanting no scratch buffer at all can null-ify the mode list.  A
   user like me can add emacs-lisp-mode and org-mode to it.

2. Just in case I need a one-off scratch buffer, I need a quick way to
   create it without having to think of (or type) out the full name Or
   confirm my intentions (This latter part is *very* annoying).  

      C-u C-x b can offer to create *scratch-%s* (or %s-scratch) in
      %s-mode.

3. I think it is not the scratch buffer that is idiosyncratic but the
   /name/.  Instead of using scratch one could call it say a notes
   buffer or a temp buffer.

That said I am happy with the way things are.  I know how to kill my
scratch buffer and I also know how to create multiple ones if needed.  I
also know how to type 'y' if prompted :-).
--