Feeling lost without tabs

Feeling lost without tabs

[Sampath Weerasinghe]

Hi,

I'm slowly migrating from notepad++ to emacs.

I feel a bit lost because emacs doesn't show
tabs. I work on multiple projects, I get distracted by various things,
but when I come back to the seat it is the tabs that
remind me which project I was last working on.

I know C-x C-b pops it up, but involves multiple keys and it also
takes a a lot of screen real estate.

I'm wondering how others overcame this.

-Sam

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Yuri Khan]

On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Sampath Weerasinghe <swe20144@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm slowly migrating from notepad++ to emacs.
>
> I feel a bit lost because emacs doesn't show
> tabs. I work on multiple projects, I get distracted by various things,
> but when I come back to the seat it is the tabs that
> remind me which project I was last working on.
>
> I know C-x C-b pops it up, but involves multiple keys and it also
> takes a a lot of screen real estate.
>
> I'm wondering how others overcame this.

You might want to have a look at tabbar-mode.

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:08:06 +0700
> From: Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com>
> Cc: "help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> 
> > I feel a bit lost because emacs doesn't show
> > tabs. I work on multiple projects, I get distracted by various things,
> > but when I come back to the seat it is the tabs that
> > remind me which project I was last working on.
> >
> > I know C-x C-b pops it up, but involves multiple keys and it also
> > takes a a lot of screen real estate.
> >
> > I'm wondering how others overcame this.
> 
> You might want to have a look at tabbar-mode.

That's one way.  Another one is to have separate frames dedicated to
different projects/activities.  You switch to a frame when you need to
get back to the project/activity specific to that frame.  Each frame
in Emacs "prefers" the buffers used in that frame, so switching
between buffers within a frame is likely to be easy, without mixing
buffers from other frames.

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Yuri Khan]

On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

>> You might want to have a look at tabbar-mode.
>
> That's one way.  Another one is to have separate frames dedicated to
> different projects/activities.  You switch to a frame when you need to
> get back to the project/activity specific to that frame.  Each frame
> in Emacs "prefers" the buffers used in that frame, so switching
> between buffers within a frame is likely to be easy, without mixing
> buffers from other frames.

How do *you* switch buffers preferred by the current frame?


In plain uncustomized Emacs, the ways of switching buffers are:

* C-x <left> and C-x <right>. For me, these conveniently work for up
to two buffers. After that, I start forgetting which way to each of
the buffers, and after three, it gets tedious just to repeat
keystrokes.
* C-x b, followed by typing a buffer name, possibly using completion.
This requires holding buffer names or at least their prefixes in one’s
head. Additionally, completion does not honor frame boundaries.
* C-x C-f with a file path/name of an existing buffer, assuming the
target is a file buffer. Roughly the same inconveniences as above.
* C-x C-b, followed by choosing a buffer from the list. This also
ignores frame boundaries and involves switching to an intermediate
buffer that occupies the whole window.


To switch buffers efficiently, I need a visual representation of their
relative order so that I can roughly estimate the number of times I
need to press a switching key combo; tabbar-mode gives me that
concisely and unobtrusively and, with a suitable grouping function,
also relevantly to the frame. (Alternatively, I could do with numbered
buffers with tabbar showing the numbers and Alt+[1-9] switching to the
indicated buffer.) I assume OP feels similarly.

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Tak Kunihiro]

> I know C-x C-b pops it up, but involves multiple keys and it also
> takes a a lot of screen real estate.

I make a narrow window on left-hand side and have buffer-menu.  I
recommend to make the window dedicated and remember, the window is
dedicated by you.

(defun buffer-menu-left ()
  "Open buffer-menu at the left-hand side"
  (interactive)
  (split-window-horizontally 30)
  (buffer-menu t)
  (set-window-dedicated-p (selected-window) t))

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:12:41 +0700
> From: Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com>
> Cc: "help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> 
> How do *you* switch buffers preferred by the current frame?

"C-x b".  The preference thing is automatic.

> To switch buffers efficiently, I need a visual representation of their
> relative order

AFAIK, each frame orders the buffers separately, so I don't see why
you would have a problem here.

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Filipp Gunbin]

On 20/07/2014 05:47 +0400, Sampath Weerasinghe wrote:

> I feel a bit lost because emacs doesn't show
> tabs. I work on multiple projects, I get distracted by various things,
> but when I come back to the seat it is the tabs that
> remind me which project I was last working on.

I'm using probably the simplest method: `C-x b' offers "future history"
(the sequence of suggestions when you hit `M-n' in the minibuffer) and
it's isearch-able!  So `C-x b' followed by `C-s' and a few letters from
the name of the buffer (any part of it).  The order in which the future
history is organized is the same as in *Buffer List* - recent come
first.

Other than that, if I completely forget the names, I switch to a dired
(I open each project in a dired buffer with -R ls option, so it shows
all files).  `(setq dired-isearch-filenames t)' helps to isearch there
when I see the needed file.

    Filipp

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Bob Proulx]

Yuri Khan wrote:
> How do *you* switch buffers preferred by the current frame?

I bind C-x C-b to electric-buffer-list.  I couldn't live without it
now.  In MNHO it is soooo much nicer than list-buffers.

  (global-set-key "\C-x\C-b" 'electric-buffer-list) ; originally list-buffers

Then C-x C-b C-n C-n ... C-n SPACE to select a buffer.

Bob

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Kevin Le Gouguec]

Had a similar experience. Searching for some way to manage my buffers taught me about Ibuffer:

http://emacs-fu.blogspot.fr/2010/02/dealing-with-many-buffers-ibuffer.html
http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/IbufferMode

It basically creates a list of all your open "tabs", and you can teach it to sort stuff in meaningful categories.

- comes with Emacs since version 22
- "teaching it" simply means adding a line like ("Category Name" (filename . "dir/to/category/")) to your config file. Filters can be based on file path, editing mode, file size...
- I made C-x C-b open Ibuffer rather than buffer-menu. I don't find the two key strokes too taxing (tell Left Pinky to go sleep on Control, get Left Index and Right Index to hit X and B roughly at the same time, there, done. Touch typists will probably tell me I should use Left Middle or Left Ring to reach X)
- the screen space is replaced by the first buffer I choose to open. Admittedly, the tabs bar on Notepad++ is always present; I got used to its absence, but I think I saw others suggesting ways to get something that stays "always on"




----- Original Message -----
From: "Sampath Weerasinghe" <swe20144@gmail.com>
To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 3:47:47 AM
Subject: Feeling lost without tabs

Hi,

I'm slowly migrating from notepad++ to emacs.

I feel a bit lost because emacs doesn't show
tabs. I work on multiple projects, I get distracted by various things,
but when I come back to the seat it is the tabs that
remind me which project I was last working on.

I know C-x C-b pops it up, but involves multiple keys and it also
takes a a lot of screen real estate.

I'm wondering how others overcame this.

-Sam

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Dan Espen]

Sampath Weerasinghe <swe20144@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I'm slowly migrating from notepad++ to emacs.
>
> I feel a bit lost because emacs doesn't show
> tabs. I work on multiple projects, I get distracted by various things,
> but when I come back to the seat it is the tabs that
> remind me which project I was last working on.
>
> I know C-x C-b pops it up, but involves multiple keys and it also
> takes a a lot of screen real estate.
>
> I'm wondering how others overcame this.

The multiple keys part is easy:

(define-key global-map [(f9)] 'electric-buffer-list)

Why hit 2 keys for something you do so often?

For, me tabs would be a huge annoyance.
I've got the WM set to no title bar for emacs.
I've got emacs customized for no toolbar and no menubar.
So, all I've got in Emacs windows is text.

-- 
Dan Espen

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Yuri Khan]

On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

>> To switch buffers efficiently, I need a visual representation of their
>> relative order
>
> AFAIK, each frame orders the buffers separately, so I don't see why
> you would have a problem here.

The problem here is that I need to see the list before I start pressing keys.

The workflow with tabbar is: eyes see tabs, fingers repeatedly press
M-S-<right>, eyes confirm that the desired tab is highlighted, fingers
stop pressing keys. With buffer-list, it is similar except the list is
more verbose.

The workflow with C-x b is: fingers press C-x b, eyes see the default
next buffer, brain tests if that’s the right one. It’s not, A: so
fingers press <down>, eyes read the next buffer name, brain tests if
that’s the right one, if not, repeat from A:. Finally, fingers press
RET.

The cognitive load (roughly, the number of eyes-brain-fingers
roundtrips) is much worse in the second case as the operations cannot
be done concurrently.

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 23:48:52 +0700
> From: Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com>
> Cc: "help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> 
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> >> To switch buffers efficiently, I need a visual representation of their
> >> relative order
> >
> > AFAIK, each frame orders the buffers separately, so I don't see why
> > you would have a problem here.
> 
> The problem here is that I need to see the list before I start pressing keys.

Only if there are a lot of them.  Keep your frames project-specific,
and there won't be too many of them you'll need to remember.  E.g.,
with programming projects, I normally switch to a buffer via some
tags-related command, so I don't even need to remember the buffer
name.  And if I need to switch to a buffer visiting a specific source
file, then I know that buffer's name by definition.  Etc. etc.

> The workflow with C-x b is: fingers press C-x b, eyes see the default
> next buffer, brain tests if that’s the right one.

A frame can display more than a single buffer, so you don't need to
switch buffers so frequently.  And when you do switch, even if you do
that with "C-x b", chances are it's the buffer displayed previously in
the same window, so no such complex procedure is needed.  I usually
just press "C-x b RET" without even looking.

> The cognitive load (roughly, the number of eyes-brain-fingers
> roundtrips) is much worse in the second case as the operations cannot
> be done concurrently.

Granted, you are happy with your workflow, as much as I'm happy with
mine (for many years now).  You asked me how do I manage my buffers,
and I told you.  We don't need to prove each other that the other's
workflow is worse.

RE: Feeling lost without tabs

[Drew Adams]

> I'm slowly migrating from notepad++ to emacs.

Sounds good.  Come on in.  Enjoy.

> I feel a bit lost because emacs doesn't show tabs. I work on
> multiple projects, I get distracted by various things,

Who doesn't? ;-)

> but when I come back to the seat it is the tabs that
> remind me which project I was last working on.

A couple of things...

1. Many (most?) Emacs users do not quit Emacs and restart it
often.  So after they get distracted by other things or take a
break, and then come back to Emacs, they come back to the same
Emacs session and they see where they left off.

2. Beyond that, there are many ways Emacs can help you organize
and keep track of projects.  Different users use different ways,
and sometimes different ways for different sets of projects.

Emacs Wiki has info that users have offered about how they work
with projects.  It can be a good place to start.  This page in
particular links to lots of info about using Emacs with projects:
http://www.emacswiki.org/CategoryProject

Wrt sets of buffers, Eli mentioned separate frames, which is one
way to group buffers into sets.  With Emacs 24.4 you can even
save frame sets persistently (as part of saved Emacs desktops),
so you can come back to them in a later Emacs session.  (But
that won't help much with some buffers that are not associated
with files.)

Another way to define sets of buffers (or files or...) is to
use Emacs bookmarks.  Like Emacs desktops, bookmarks can be
persistent (they are by default).

If you use library Bookmark+, http://www.emacswiki.org/BookmarkPlus
then you can have desktop bookmarks, which means that by hitting
a key you can switch to a different set of frames, buffers, etc.
Bookmark+ also lets you tag bookmarks in arbitrary ways, which
defines different sets of bookmarks (hence different sets of
files, directories, projects,...).

There are really quite a few things that Emacs has to offer in
the way of organizing projects.  And for just switching among
buffers (which is where this thread started).

Start with something like `tabbar.el' if it is close to what
you are used to and what you like.  But I think you will sooner
or later try other things that offer you more features for
navigating and organizing projects.

(Oh, and try starting Emacs once and leaving it running...
Emacs is not Notepad or notepad++.)

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Robert Thorpe]

Sampath Weerasinghe <swe20144@gmail.com> writes:
...
> I know C-x C-b pops it up, but involves multiple keys and it also
> takes a a lot of screen real estate.
>
> I'm wondering how others overcame this.

There are many ways to deal with this, as others have shown.

I often leave Emacs open on a buffer list to remind myself of what I was
doing.  I remap the keys C-x LEFT and C-x RIGHT to shorter combinations
(I use C-4 & C-5).  If I know the buffer isn't one of the ones I've used
recently I use C-x b is I know it's name, if not I use C-x C-b.  I've
mapped C-x C-b to buffer-menu-other-window.  That only changes one thing
compared to the default, it makes the cursor move to the buffer-menu.  I
find that useful because the buffer-menu has useful navigation keys.
For example, "1" will make the selected buffer fill the whole frame.
"2" is useful too, do C-h m in a buffer menu and you'll find some useful
keybindings.  Like Eli I tend to use tag following when I'm navigating
code.

BR,
Robert Thorpe

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Bob Proulx]

Dan Espen wrote:
> The multiple keys part is easy:
> (define-key global-map [(f9)] 'electric-buffer-list)
> Why hit 2 keys for something you do so often?

Since we are both using electric-buffer-list I know we are in the same
group on that.  It is great.  :-)

But as for binding to a function key to avoid C-x C-b being two keys I
will respond that F9 isn't in the home row of keys.  On the standard
IBM PC style keyboard one must move the hands from the home row and
find and hit that single key.  I touch type but I would need to look
to hit that one accurately.  That is a much higher finger workload
than simply typing two control keys from the normal finger typing
position that can be done by touch typing.

Although I expected that some people will raise the case that chorded
keys are multiple keys.  But at least in my brain chorded control keys
"feel" like one keystroke and not two.  Like many old Unix keyboard
users I bind the capslock key to be control so that it is where it
"should" be again.  Then I type control keys just about as quickly and
as effortlessly as any other non-control-chorded key.

I live by C-x C-b C-n ... SPACE all of the time to change buffers.
And to toggle back and forth between two buffers C-x b to select the
previously selected buffer.  It really goes very fast.

> For, me tabs would be a huge annoyance.
> I've got the WM set to no title bar for emacs.
> I've got emacs customized for no toolbar and no menubar.
> So, all I've got in Emacs windows is text.

Me too to all of the above.  Remove the extra fluff.  Maximumize the
amount of edit buffer for what I am editing.

Bob

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Sampath Weerasinghe <swe20144@gmail.com> writes:

> I'm slowly migrating from notepad++ to emacs.
>
> I feel a bit lost because emacs doesn't show tabs.

You are not the first to experience this. A lot of
people got used to tabs from Firefox (or if it was
called Mozilla back then) and then it suddenly was a
common feature everywhere. (It would be interesting who
came up with it first though.)

In the Emacs world, I only have tabs in w3m
(screenshot: [1]), though in function names, commands,
etc. sometimes what I intuitively think of as tabs,
they refer to as buffers...

> I work on multiple projects, I get distracted by
> various things, but when I come back to the seat it
> is the tabs that remind me which project I was last
> working on.

`buffer-menu' would help you with that, as the most
recently used buffers are topmost.

> I know C-x C-b pops it up, but involves multiple keys

You can define your own shortcut. For example, I have
<caps> bring up the `buffer-menu'.

Specifically, I use this defun:

(defun buffer-menu-files-only ()
  (interactive)
  (buffer-menu (not Buffer-menu-files-only)) )

It means, if I hit it again while the buffer menu is
shown, I get a new buffer menu, this time not only
showing "file buffers" but also buffers of w3m, Gnus,
and so on.
  
> and it also takes a a lot of screen real estate.

Yes, for this, `buffer-menu' is even worse than
`list-buffers' (the one you get with `C-x C-b') because
`buffer-menu' uses the whole window. On the other hand,
that makes it impossible to use as a poor-man's
substitute for tabs, so you just go there to switch
buffer.

If you really like tabs, neither of these methods are
good. You need to find a tab package for Emacs.

The `buffer-menu' solution is good for simple switches,
but for more ambitious projects, and files that occur
regularly, I have a system that is based on keystrokes
and prefixes. `C-j e' is my "Emacs prefix", so `C-j e
e' is ~/.emacs, `C-j e f' is a file where I keep all
everything related to reaching files (f) from Emacs,
`C-j g g' is configurations/extentions for Gnus groups,
`C-j t' is ~/todo.txt, and so on. For a programming
project, I employ the same system, but with different
prefixes and/or keys, of course. Every single file I
setup this way. It is time consuming in the early phase
but then it is so fast it is not a loss of time, on the
contrary. But the main advantage isn't speed, but
workflow. When you have achieved a high degree of focus
then it really sucks to jump back and forth between
files writing long paths or searching for them in
nested files trees. With is system, I'm one keystroke
away from any other file, wherever I am in Emacs. [2]

Earlier, I used registers, like this:

(set-register ?l (cons 'file "/sudo::/etc/rc.local"))

And then I setup a shortcut to `jump-to-register'
(`C-j' actually, short, and doesn't require you to move
you hands from typing positions). That was a good idea
but there aren't enough registers, which is why I
thought of the prefix solution. (The prefix way is also
mnemonic/intuitive as it can be made to mirror the tree
structure of a filesystem, so you get more
familiar/comfortable with that just by jumping between
files.)

There are also bookmarks, and many, many other attempts
to solve this file problem, which a very important
problem for programmers and all computer people. We all
think the approach of "small, modular files, use the
filesystem to express purpose and association as well
as to encapsulate" is the best. But do that all day
long, and moving between all those soon-to-be zillion
files is a real pest! So to jump between them in the
close-to-speed-of-thought must be solved somehow,
otherwise all that overhead typing paths and navigating
the filesystem will just make for crappy workflow,
frustration and loss of focus, which is (as said) much
more important than the time loss, which is important
in itself.

So the Emacs "pros" should really put their minds to
this problem even more as it is an annoyance to many
veterans as well as an obstacle to many newcomers.

[1] http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/dumps/w3m-tabs.png
[2] http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/conf/emacs-init/global-keys.el

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:

> The multiple keys part is easy:
>
> (define-key global-map [(f9)] 'electric-buffer-list)

Well, it is not that easy. Look on the keyboard where
`C-x C-b' is and where F9 is. While I agree `C-x C-b'
isn't good (too long), it is better than F9 because the
function keys - as well as the arrow keys, the numeric
keypad, etc. - require you to move your hand(s) away
from typing position(s). They are difficult to hit so
you need to look down to hit them. Then you need to
reset with the same problem. I never use them. A short
keystroke is not always better that a long.

> Why hit 2 keys for something you do so often?
>
> For, me tabs would be a huge annoyance.  I've got the
> WM set to no title bar for emacs.  I've got emacs
> customized for no toolbar and no menubar.  So, all
> I've got in Emacs windows is text.

Yes, I do the same. The OP isn't all Emacs just
yet... you just wait :)

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> writes:

> I bind C-x C-b to electric-buffer-list.  I couldn't
> live without it now.  In MNHO it is soooo much nicer
> than list-buffers.

Could you just short say what the differences are and
how you experience them to be better? I never used
`electric-buffer-list' but it looks kind of the same at
first glance.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com> writes:

> The workflow with tabbar is: eyes see tabs, fingers
> repeatedly press M-S-<right>

You can of course reconfigure that to something that
doesn't involve reaching for the arrow keys. I had to
do that with w3m because they also had long and far
keystrokes for moving between the tabs as
default. This was even more bizarre since w3m isn't a
"type mode" - the entire keyboard (including single
keys: "a", "f", etc.) is available! I found that "j"
and "l" are good chaises for horizontal movement, and
likewise "i" and "k" for vertical. Again, where they
are on they keyboard, and where your fingers
are... With tabs, and a buffer you'd type in, you'll
need a prefix, of course, but the rest is applicable
just the same...

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> writes:

> Me too to all of the above.  Remove the extra fluff.
> Maximumize the amount of edit buffer for what I am
> editing.

This is even more important if you like me like a
projector with huge letters and not that many letters
per line. Then it is a matter of really making every
line count. Besides it is a principle of mine that only
a minimum information - the information that I need to
do what I want to do - should enter my eyes and
brain. But in this case, I think the OP considers his
tabs to be in that vital category. So regardless of
what we think of tabs for Emacs, we should help him
find a package to get him that. As for me, I don't know
of any tabs in the Emacs world except those I have
already mentioned, in w3m.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Dan Espen]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:

> Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> writes:
>
>> I bind C-x C-b to electric-buffer-list.  I couldn't
>> live without it now.  In MNHO it is soooo much nicer
>> than list-buffers.
>
> Could you just short say what the differences are and
> how you experience them to be better? I never used
> `electric-buffer-list' but it looks kind of the same at
> first glance.

Yes, it does, but in each way it differs, it's better.
It's been so long since I switched that I can't enumerate
the differences.

Space selects.
You can mark multiple buffers for deletion.

-- 
Dan Espen

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Dan Espen]

Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> writes:

> Dan Espen wrote:
>> The multiple keys part is easy:
>> (define-key global-map [(f9)] 'electric-buffer-list)
>> Why hit 2 keys for something you do so often?
>
> Since we are both using electric-buffer-list I know we are in the same
> group on that.  It is great.  :-)
>
> But as for binding to a function key to avoid C-x C-b being two keys I
> will respond that F9 isn't in the home row of keys.  On the standard
> IBM PC style keyboard one must move the hands from the home row and
> find and hit that single key.  I touch type but I would need to look
> to hit that one accurately.  That is a much higher finger workload
> than simply typing two control keys from the normal finger typing
> position that can be done by touch typing.

I can find F9, (in fact all the function keys) without looking.
Since they're in groups of 4 it's pretty easy.

Somehow, I don't mind moving my hands around even though I touch type,
but I do have this in my .emacs too:

;These replace the standard bindings with a better buffer list
(global-set-key "\C-x\C-b" 'electric-buffer-list) ;^x^b better buff list
(global-set-key "\C-xb"    'electric-buffer-list) ;^x b better buff list

(Just in case.)

-- 
Dan Espen

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:

>> Could you just short say what the differences are
>> and how you experience them to be better? I never
>> used `electric-buffer-list' but it looks kind of the
>> same at first glance.
>
> Yes, it does, but in each way it differs, it's
> better.  It's been so long since I switched that I
> can't enumerate the differences.

OK, I like `buffer-menu' because it replaces the whole
window where the command is given. (But I take it that
can be configured for `list-buffers' and the
`electric-buffer-list' as well.) But I've spent some
time configuring the `buffer-menu', and I have no
complaints, so I won't switch, but it is interesting
that at least three so alike solutions to do more or
less the same thing are shipped with Emacs. Not that I
mind, let a thousand flowers bloom... But normally you
don't see that.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Charles Philip Chan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 738 bytes --]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:

> but it is interesting that at least three so alike solutions to do
> more or less the same thing are shipped with Emacs. Not that I mind,
> let a thousand flowers bloom... But normally you don't see that.

Not part of Emacs, but after trying many options, I have happily settled
on using Helm[1] (formally Anything) for completions. For buffers there
is helm-buffers-list[2]. Here is a wiki to show you what Helm can do[3].

Charles


Footnotes: 
[1] https://github.com/emacs-helm/helm 

[2] https://github.com/emacs-helm/helm/wiki#helmforbuffers 

[3] https://github.com/emacs-helm/helm/wiki 

-- 
"Whip me.  Beat me.  Make me maintain AIX."
(By Stephan Zielinski)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Dan Espen]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:

> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>
>>> Could you just short say what the differences are
>>> and how you experience them to be better? I never
>>> used `electric-buffer-list' but it looks kind of the
>>> same at first glance.
>>
>> Yes, it does, but in each way it differs, it's
>> better.  It's been so long since I switched that I
>> can't enumerate the differences.
>
> OK, I like `buffer-menu' because it replaces the whole
> window where the command is given.

electric will take as much room as it needs, but looks
like it will leave 3 lines visible.  It's been so
long, but it's one of the things I liked.

> (But I take it that
> can be configured for `list-buffers' and the
> `electric-buffer-list' as well.) But I've spent some
> time configuring the `buffer-menu',

On the wiki I wrote up how to font-lock the electric
buffer list.

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Yuri Khan]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> wrote:

>> The workflow with tabbar is: eyes see tabs, fingers
>> repeatedly press M-S-<right>
>
> You can of course reconfigure that to something that
> doesn't involve reaching for the arrow keys.

I don’t need to — on my keyboard the arrow keys are a good deal closer
to the home row than on conventional PC keyboard. In fact, I can press
<right> with a two-row curl of the right pinky. Search for “Truly
Ergonomic” if interested.

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Stefan Monnier]

> The workflow with C-x b is: fingers press C-x b, eyes see the default
> next buffer, brain tests if that’s the right one. It’s not, A: so
> fingers press <down>, eyes read the next buffer name, brain tests if
> that’s the right one, if not, repeat from A:. Finally, fingers press
> RET.

You might like to try icomplete-mode.
And you might like to M-x report-emacs-bug requesting that the list of
completions in icomplete-mode (for C-x b) sort buffers "for the current
frame" before others.


        Stefan

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Bob Proulx]

Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Bob Proulx writes:
> > I bind C-x C-b to electric-buffer-list.  I couldn't
> > live without it now.  In MNHO it is soooo much nicer
> > than list-buffers.
> 
> Could you just short say what the differences are and
> how you experience them to be better? I never used
> `electric-buffer-list' but it looks kind of the same at
> first glance.

As others have said it opens a buffer window, places the point at the
first file in that buffer window.  This shows me a buffer window list
and focuses there.  I can review my buffer windows.  Hitting SPACE
selects a buffer window.  If I hit SPACE immediately then I return to
the same buffer window I left.  Otherwise I can n, n, n down to the
buffer window I want and SPACE to select it.  The newly selected
buffer now replaces the previously selected buffer window.  The new
emacs window configuration with regard to split windows is the same
for all other windows but the currently focused window only is changed
to another buffer.

I had previously said C-n C-p to move through the menu list.  But of
course n and p also work.  I usually already have my finger on the
control so had not really taken notice of the flexibility.

With list-buffers the buffer list splits the current frame into two
windows and puts the buffer window list into the other window.
Whatever buffer I had in the other split window is now gone.  In order
to focus on the buffer list I need to either C-x 0 or C-x o.  Then in
the *Buffer list* window I use n or p to position on the desired
buffer.  Then press f or o or any of a variety of keys to select that
buffer in either the current window or the other window.

The result is that with list-buffers it is disruptive to the window
layout that I have active at the moment I want to switch one of the
windows to a different buffer.  Plus there are more steps needed to
perform the same function.

With electric-buffer-list bound: C-x C-b n n SPACE

With buffer-list bound: C-x C-b C-o n n f C-x 4 b C-x 4 b C-x 4 b

The C-x 4 b times three is the finger memory way I rotate through two
windows in order to swap their contents.  Because using list-buffers
splits the current frame or replaces the other window in the frame it
causes order of windows to be reversed from the previous arrangement.
That requires a window buffer swap in order to restore the desired
ordering.  For example I prefer a code window above and a gdb debugger
window below and not the other way around.  Maybe there is a better
way to use list-buffers that avoids that problem but I just looked
again and I didn't see it.  The window order issue is completely
avoided by using electric-buffer-list since that only affects the
current window and does not modify any others.

I hadn't been aware of buffer-menu.  Playing with it now shows that it
works very similarly to electric-buffer-list.  I think anyone using
either buffer-menu or electric-buffer-list are in the same group and
want the same thing and could use either of those almost
interchangeably.  I assume electric-buffer-list came first and
buffer-menu duplicated the behavior since I have been using
electric-buffer-list for a very many years and had not ever heard of
buffer-menu before?  That is my assumption until I learn otherwise.

Bob

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Bob Proulx]

Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Besides it is a principle of mine that only a minimum information -
> the information that I need to do what I want to do - should enter
> my eyes and brain.

Yep.

> But in this case, I think the OP considers his tabs to be in that
> vital category. So regardless of what we think of tabs for Emacs, we
> should help him find a package to get him that. As for me, I don't
> know of any tabs in the Emacs world except those I have already
> mentioned, in w3m.

Oh I completely agree.  I was just adding my reasoning to the
discussion.  Thanks for keeping focused on the original issue.

In that spirit I am surprised that no one has mentioned the emacs
speedbar.  I am not using it and therefore I didn't mention it but
perhaps that would be the right mental model for the OP?

  https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Speedbar.html

  https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/speedbar/index.html

  http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/SpeedBar

  http://cedet.sourceforge.net/speedbar.shtml

Some screenshots:
  http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/SrSpeedbar

And that is all I know about it since I am not using it.

Bob

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Dan Espen]

Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> writes:

> Emanuel Berg wrote:
>> Bob Proulx writes:
>> > I bind C-x C-b to electric-buffer-list.  I couldn't
>> > live without it now.  In MNHO it is soooo much nicer
>> > than list-buffers.
>> 
>> Could you just short say what the differences are and
>> how you experience them to be better? I never used
>> `electric-buffer-list' but it looks kind of the same at
>> first glance.
>
> As others have said it opens a buffer window, places the point at the
> first file in that buffer window.  This shows me a buffer window list
> and focuses there.  I can review my buffer windows.  Hitting SPACE
> selects a buffer window.  If I hit SPACE immediately then I return to
> the same buffer window I left.  Otherwise I can n, n, n down to the
> buffer window I want and SPACE to select it.  The newly selected
> buffer now replaces the previously selected buffer window.  The new
> emacs window configuration with regard to split windows is the same
> for all other windows but the currently focused window only is changed
> to another buffer.
>
> I had previously said C-n C-p to move through the menu list.  But of
> course n and p also work.  I usually already have my finger on the
> control so had not really taken notice of the flexibility.
>
> With list-buffers the buffer list splits the current frame into two
> windows and puts the buffer window list into the other window.
> Whatever buffer I had in the other split window is now gone.  In order
> to focus on the buffer list I need to either C-x 0 or C-x o.  Then in
> the *Buffer list* window I use n or p to position on the desired
> buffer.  Then press f or o or any of a variety of keys to select that
> buffer in either the current window or the other window.
>
> The result is that with list-buffers it is disruptive to the window
> layout that I have active at the moment I want to switch one of the
> windows to a different buffer.  Plus there are more steps needed to
> perform the same function.
>
> With electric-buffer-list bound: C-x C-b n n SPACE
>
> With buffer-list bound: C-x C-b C-o n n f C-x 4 b C-x 4 b C-x 4 b
>
> The C-x 4 b times three is the finger memory way I rotate through two
> windows in order to swap their contents.  Because using list-buffers
> splits the current frame or replaces the other window in the frame it
> causes order of windows to be reversed from the previous arrangement.
> That requires a window buffer swap in order to restore the desired
> ordering.  For example I prefer a code window above and a gdb debugger
> window below and not the other way around.  Maybe there is a better
> way to use list-buffers that avoids that problem but I just looked
> again and I didn't see it.  The window order issue is completely
> avoided by using electric-buffer-list since that only affects the
> current window and does not modify any others.
>
> I hadn't been aware of buffer-menu.  Playing with it now shows that it
> works very similarly to electric-buffer-list.  I think anyone using
> either buffer-menu or electric-buffer-list are in the same group and
> want the same thing and could use either of those almost
> interchangeably.  I assume electric-buffer-list came first and
> buffer-menu duplicated the behavior since I have been using
> electric-buffer-list for a very many years and had not ever heard of
> buffer-menu before?  That is my assumption until I learn otherwise.

buffer menu first.
I think you'll find it's the default binding.
Something that should have changed a long time ago.



-- 
Dan Espen

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Bob Proulx]

Dan Espen wrote:
> Bob Proulx writes:
> > I assume electric-buffer-list came first and buffer-menu
> > duplicated the behavior since I have been using
> > electric-buffer-list for a very many years and had not ever heard
> > of buffer-menu before?  That is my assumption until I learn
> > otherwise.
> 
> buffer menu first.

Hmm...  I remain cautiously suspicious.  :-)

> I think you'll find it's the default binding.

No.  The default binding for C-x C-b is list-buffers.  I am using the
current Debian Sid Unstable version.  The GNU upstream may have
changed it very recently but if so that hasn't trickled down yet.

  emacs -Q
  C-h c C-x C-b
  C-x C-b runs the command list-buffers

  M-x emacs-version
  GNU Emacs 24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.12.2) of 2014-06-06 on barber, modified by Debian

> Something that should have changed a long time ago.

I would agree but as far as I can see it hasn't changed.

Bob

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Dan Espen]

Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> writes:

> Dan Espen wrote:
>> Bob Proulx writes:
>> > I assume electric-buffer-list came first and buffer-menu
>> > duplicated the behavior since I have been using
>> > electric-buffer-list for a very many years and had not ever heard
>> > of buffer-menu before?  That is my assumption until I learn
>> > otherwise.
>> 
>> buffer menu first.
>
> Hmm...  I remain cautiously suspicious.  :-)
>
>> I think you'll find it's the default binding.
>
> No.  The default binding for C-x C-b is list-buffers.  I am using the
> current Debian Sid Unstable version.  The GNU upstream may have
> changed it very recently but if so that hasn't trickled down yet.
>
>   emacs -Q
>   C-h c C-x C-b
>   C-x C-b runs the command list-buffers

Oops, sure are a lot of buffer showers.

I THINK whatever has the default binding is what
came first.

I just feel the best one should be the default.
Could be ibuffer or some other xbuffer is the best,
but electric is better than the default (IMO).

-- 
Dan Espen

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:

> buffer menu first.  I think you'll find it's the
> default binding.  Something that should have changed
> a long time ago.

See: as always, I'm the techno-archeologist...

Do you also happen to know why buffer-menu was
"forked", if that is the term in the Emacs world as
well? I use it, so I'd be interested in hearing its
real and/or perceived drawbacks.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> writes:

> No.  The default binding for C-x C-b is list-buffers.
> I am using the current Debian Sid Unstable version.
> The GNU upstream may have changed it very recently
> but if so that hasn't trickled down yet.

Yes, the same for Jessie. No, I think list-buffers is
it (the default for `C-x C-b' now and then and probably
won't change).

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:

> I just feel the best one should be the default.
> Could be ibuffer or some other xbuffer is the best,
> but electric is better than the default (IMO).

Perhaps it would make sense to merge some or many of
those projects if they are so similar. In principle I
don't mind lots of stuff doing more or less the same
thing, and especially if it is very ambitious projects
such as web browsers, mail clients, and so on, they
don't have to be different even in principle because
the complexity will add so many big and subtle
differences anyway. However, for seemingly small
projects like this one has to wonder if there isn't
reinvention of the wheel going on. It wouldn't be far
fetched for the users of one to miss out the features
of another, and being oblivious to this as this perhaps
isn't discussed so often - it is such a low profile
thing, look the same, do seemingly the same things -
not likely to stir controversy or be the focus of the
discussion particularly often.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:

> I can find F9, (in fact all the function keys)
> without looking.  Since they're in groups of 4 it's
> pretty easy.
>
> Somehow, I don't mind moving my hands around even
> though I touch type

Yeah? :) Then I have the coolest suggestion for you -
why don't you have six keyboard - all in different
colors and with no marks on them - at to vertical
levels - on front, and one on each side?

While I love shortcuts, actually, my dream would be to
never use them but to have a complete 1-1
physical/hardware-functional/software interface. Can
you imagine how cool it would be to never, ever stumble
on a shortcut?

I can actually get that for all the modes that don't
require typing - w3m, Gnus (except for the message
mode, of course), the buffer menu just mentioned, and
so on. But whenever there is typing there must be
shortcuts as there are so few keys left, and, typing -
editing, point movements - this requires so many
shortcuts.

How do fighter pilots do it? Then it must be super-fast,
and no "fumbling" can ever be allowed? I remember a
flight simulator for the Mac, F/A-18 Hornet. It took up
almost the entire keyboard. It was considered very
realistic (at the time) but I take it reality is even
more complex. Remember that fighter pilots also cannot
be allowed to "look down", just a us! Anyone knows how
they do it? They say programmers often take to flying
when they get rich... (E.g., Woz, speaking of the
accursed Apple world.)

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Bob Proulx]

Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Yeah? :) Then I have the coolest suggestion for you -
> why don't you have six keyboard - all in different
> colors and with no marks on them - at to vertical
> levels - on front, and one on each side?

If anyone does this please post a photo! :-)

> While I love shortcuts, actually, my dream would be to
> never use them but to have a complete 1-1
> physical/hardware-functional/software interface. Can
> you imagine how cool it would be to never, ever stumble
> on a shortcut?

Yes.  But at some point the brain can become overloaded.  I have some
ham radios that have had feature creep to the point that they are no
longer possible to be operated without the manual open beside them.
That is bad.  Was it left function, right function, then action
button?  Or was it push and hold left function 1s until beep, then
action button?  Or right function hold 1s, left function, then action?
I have truly awful "computerized" radio like that.  Others with less
features are more usable because sometimes you don't have the manual
in front of you.

> How do fighter pilots do it? Then it must be super-fast,
> and no "fumbling" can ever be allowed?

Actually no.  I am a general aviation pilot (not a fighter pilot, I
fly taildragges) but the concept for fighters is HOTAS.  Hands On
Throttle-And-Stick.  Put the switches you need on either the throttle
or stick so they can be reached without removing hands from the flight
controls.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTAS

Mostly when you do need to manipulate a switch not on either throttle
or stick you keep one hand on the control stick, leave the throttle in
the friction lock to hold it in place, and use the throttle hand to
flip switches.  And especially with radios there is always a lot of
fumbling.

> I remember a flight simulator for the Mac, F/A-18 Hornet. It took up
> almost the entire keyboard.

Because the keyboard is a general purpose interface for human text it
doesn't really make a good match to an airplane cockpit.  Meaning that
it will be more complicated because there is a mapping from one to
another.  The keys are binary.  Most flight controls are analog.  And
therefore all are a compromise.

Note that many modern airliners have a full keyboard in the cockpit.
It is useful for entering flight plans and other data specific
details.  It folds up out of the way when not in active use.  But in
that role it is dedicated again to the task and not mapped to flight
controls as in the games.

> It was considered very realistic (at the time) but I take it reality
> is even more complex.

More and less.  When you are centered in the cockpit you can turn your
head and look around and everything makes sense around you.  But in a
game display this is difficult to achieve.  Plus the real aircraft
includes feeling the movement in your seat which also gives you
clues.  Perhaps it is more like flying an RC aircraft.

> They say programmers often take to flying when they get
> rich... (E.g., Woz, speaking of the accursed Apple world.)

When I get rich I will let you know.  Until then flying is one of the
things keeping me poor.  But I wouldn't give up flying for money.  It
is the other way around.

Bob

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Robert Thorpe]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:

> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> I just feel the best one should be the default.
>> Could be ibuffer or some other xbuffer is the best,
>> but electric is better than the default (IMO).
>
> Perhaps it would make sense to merge some or many of
> those projects if they are so similar.

There's much more reuse than you think.  The normal Emacs buffer list,
the one tied to C-x C-b is 'list-buffers'.

Here is the code for list-buffers with the docstring removed:
(defun list-buffers (&optional arg)
  (interactive "P")
  (display-buffer (list-buffers-noselect arg)))

Here is the code for buffer-menu with the docstring removed:
(defun buffer-menu (&optional arg)
  (interactive "P")
  (switch-to-buffer (list-buffers-noselect arg))
  (message
   "Commands: d, s, x, u; f, o, 1, 2, m, v; ~, %%; q to quit; ? for
   help."))

The one I use is buffer-menu-other-window:
(defun buffer-menu-other-window (&optional arg)
  (interactive "P")
  (switch-to-buffer-other-window (list-buffers-noselect arg))
  (message
   "Commands: d, s, x, u; f, o, 1, 2, m, v; ~, %%; q to quit; ? for
   help."))

So, all of them use the same underlying function:
'list-buffers-noselect', also all are in the same file: buff-menu.el.
Once you're in the menu buffer they all behave exactly the same.

The only major difference with electric-buffer-list is the keymap.  The
buffer menu is made by calling list-buffer-noselect as usual then
changing the keymaps.  Electric-buffer-menu-mode is derived from
Buffer-menu-mode using ~300 lines of code in ebuff-menu.el.

There is another buffer menu packaged with Emacs that's entirely
different: ibuffer.  I understand a lot of people use that, I tried to
once but I've got too used to the default.

BR,
Robert Thorpe

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Robert Thorpe]

Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> writes:
...
> I hadn't been aware of buffer-menu.  Playing with it now shows that it
> works very similarly to electric-buffer-list.

It behaves exactly the same as list-buffers except for how the windows
are arranged when it's opened.  As I was saying to Emanuel they use the
same code internally.

BR,
Robert Thorpe

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Dan Espen]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:

> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> I just feel the best one should be the default.
>> Could be ibuffer or some other xbuffer is the best,
>> but electric is better than the default (IMO).
>
> Perhaps it would make sense to merge some or many of
> those projects if they are so similar. In principle I
> don't mind lots of stuff doing more or less the same
> thing, and especially if it is very ambitious projects
> such as web browsers, mail clients, and so on, they
> don't have to be different even in principle because
> the complexity will add so many big and subtle
> differences anyway. However, for seemingly small
> projects like this one has to wonder if there isn't
> reinvention of the wheel going on. It wouldn't be far
> fetched for the users of one to miss out the features
> of another, and being oblivious to this as this perhaps
> isn't discussed so often - it is such a low profile
> thing, look the same, do seemingly the same things -
> not likely to stir controversy or be the focus of the
> discussion particularly often.

I agree.  Way too many buffer thingies.
It's like each time someone comes up with an improvement
we get a new one instead of the original gaining the new
features and everyone benefiting.

-- 
Dan Espen

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Dan Espen]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:

> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> I can find F9, (in fact all the function keys)
>> without looking.  Since they're in groups of 4 it's
>> pretty easy.
>>
>> Somehow, I don't mind moving my hands around even
>> though I touch type
>
> Yeah? :) Then I have the coolest suggestion for you -
> why don't you have six keyboard - all in different
> colors and with no marks on them - at to vertical
> levels - on front, and one on each side?

Just one keyboard for 2 computers.  (I have a KVM.)

I have mechanical keys (blue cherry) and LED lit keys.
The office is dark and the letters on the keyboard glow blue.

(I like it.  Goes well with the XMAS lights I use for low level
lighting.)

I've got delete entire line (like hitting C-a C-k C-k) bound
to the big plus sign on the numeric pad.  I don't navigating over
there either.

I'm not really trying to set any speed records.

-- 
Dan Espen

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Yuri Khan]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Stefan Monnier
<monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> You might like to try icomplete-mode.
> And you might like to M-x report-emacs-bug requesting that the list of
> completions in icomplete-mode (for C-x b) sort buffers "for the current
> frame" before others.


What I actually do is three things.

* First, there is tabbar-mode with a grouping function that assigns a
single group to each window (not frame) and groups buffers by the
window they were last seen in. (The “last seen in” information is
tracked by a hook.) I use M-S-<left>/<right> to switch tabs and never
switch groups.

* Second, M-S-<down> calls ibuffer (in the current window), allowing
me to select a buffer if it’s too far away or bring a buffer from a
different window.

* Third, M-S-<up> is bound to dired-jump, letting me navigate buffers
according to the filesystem-based relationships.

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Javier]

I think dealing with frames in windows/mac is much more difficult than
in linux.  In windows, having multiple frames open will overfill the
taskbar.  Window managers in Linux are more powerful and have better
ways of dealing with multiple frames by virtual desktops or iconifying
windows.

Some usefuld keybindings for dealing with frames:

(global-set-key [f4] 'delete-frame)  ;originally bound to call-kbd-macro (also accessible with C-x e)
(global-set-key [C-f4] 'delete-frame)

;; navigate frames with Shift + arrow left/right
(defun other-frame-dec () "" (interactive) (other-frame '+1))
(defun other-frame-inc () "" (interactive) (other-frame '-1))
(global-set-key [S-left] 'other-frame-dec)
(global-set-key [S-right] 'other-frame-inc)

If you like frames you can make almost evertyhing pop up in a new
frame and not have the default screen splitting-in-2 behaviour

(setq pop-up-frames t)   ;;; everything is opened in a new frame.

You will never again see a split screen unless you ask explicitly for
it with C-x 2.  That has its drawbacks, like completition buffers
popping up in a new frame.  Sometimes the frames will remain in the
background and it seems that nothing has been opened, specially in
console mode.

(setq frame-auto-hide-function 'delete-frame)
;;; Kill frames instead of hiding them by pressing q (in completition buffers)



Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:08:06 +0700
>> From: Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
>> 
>> > I feel a bit lost because emacs doesn't show
>> > tabs. I work on multiple projects, I get distracted by various things,
>> > but when I come back to the seat it is the tabs that
>> > remind me which project I was last working on.
>> >
>> > I know C-x C-b pops it up, but involves multiple keys and it also
>> > takes a a lot of screen real estate.
>> >
>> > I'm wondering how others overcame this.
>> 
>> You might want to have a look at tabbar-mode.
> 
> That's one way.  Another one is to have separate frames dedicated to
> different projects/activities.  You switch to a frame when you need to
> get back to the project/activity specific to that frame.  Each frame
> in Emacs "prefers" the buffers used in that frame, so switching
> between buffers within a frame is likely to be easy, without mixing
> buffers from other frames.
> 

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Ken Goldman]

On 7/22/2014 11:14 AM, Javier wrote:
> I think dealing with frames in windows/mac is much more difficult than
> in linux.  In windows, having multiple frames open will overfill the
> taskbar.  Window managers in Linux are more powerful and have better
> ways of dealing with multiple frames by virtual desktops or iconifying
> windows.

Windows works fine if you put the taskbar on the left rather than the 
bottom.  There's far more space, and you can read the text.  Windows 
will also group applications if the taskbar fills and, hovering expands 
them menu-like.

OTOH, the Linux taskbar on the side is broken, at least for gnome, since 
the vertical size grows as the horizontal size grows.

RE: Feeling lost without tabs

[Drew Adams]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3928 bytes --]

> I think dealing with frames in windows/mac is much more difficult than
> in linux.  In windows, having multiple frames open will overfill the
> taskbar.

I'm using MS Windows 7, before that I used Windows XP, and in both
cases all of my Emacs frames are iconified to the same, single Emacs
icon in the task bar.  I have one such icon per Emacs session.

This is controlled by this Windows setting:

Right-click the task bar > Properties > Taskbar buttons:
                                        "Always combine, hide labels"

> Window managers in Linux are more powerful and have better ways of
> dealing with multiple frames by virtual desktops or iconifying
> windows.

I assume you mean iconifying to the desktop (rather than what Windows
does, which is iconify to the task bar).  OT1H, you complain that
Windows iconification fills up the task bar, and OTOH you tout other
managers filling up the desktop.  Hmm.  (Granted, there is more space
on the desktop than on the taskbar.)

FWIW, on both MS Windows and GNU/Linux I iconify frames to the desktop
whenever I want, using `C-z' (which also deiconifies).  And I can make
those icons any size I want.  And those icons are actually miniature,
functioning Emacs frames - thumbnail frames.  (They are not
window-manager icons.)  I can search in them, watch log messages stream
through them, scroll them,...

But mainly I just use them to organize the frames I am currently working
with the most.  Attached are images of (a) a thumbnail frame and (b) the
same, stretched to show more of the buffer.  (From the size and position
of the scroll-bar thumb you can tell that this is a large file.)
(http://www.emacswiki.org/FisheyeWithThumbs)

> Some usefuld keybindings for dealing with frames:
> (global-set-key [f4] 'delete-frame)  ;originally bound to call-kbd-macro
> (global-set-key [C-f4] 'delete-frame)

Suggestion: don't waste a repeatable key on an operation that you won't
repeat (i.e., hold the key down for).  Just use the predefined `C-x 5 0'.

> If you like frames you can make almost evertyhing pop up in a new
> frame and not have the default screen splitting-in-2 behaviour
>
> (setq pop-up-frames t)   ;;; everything is opened in a new frame.
>
> You will never again see a split screen unless you ask explicitly for
> it with C-x 2.

Yes; `pop-up-frames' is good.  Unfortunately, Emacs Dev considers
this simple user convenience to be obsolete, and invites you to
instead jump through the gymnastic, labyrinthine hoops of the
epicyclic option `display-buffer-alist'.  Fortunately, `pop-up-frames'
still works fine, for the time being...

And if you use non-nil `pop-up-frames' then you might prefer to let
`C-x 0' delete the frame when the frame has only one window.  That is
what the advised version of `delete-window' in `frame-cmds.el' does:
(http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs-en/download/frame-cmds.el)

(defadvice delete-window (around delete-frame-if-one-win activate)
  "If WINDOW is the only one in its frame, then `delete-frame' too."
  (save-current-buffer
    (select-window (or (ad-get-arg 0)  (selected-window)))
    (if (one-window-p t) (delete-frame) ad-do-it)))

> That has its drawbacks, like completition buffers popping up in
> a new frame.

The main problem with that is that the `*Completions*' frame needs
to have its input focus redirected to the frame with the current
minibuffer.  Library `oneonone.el' optionally does that, and it
optionally uses a standalone minibuffer frame.
(http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs-en/download/oneonone.el)

In addition, vanilla Emacs is still pretty poor at removing the
display of `*Completions*' when it is no longer useful.  Icicles
takes care of this, whether or not the display is in its own frame.
(http://www.emacswiki.org/Icicles)

> (setq frame-auto-hide-function 'delete-frame)

Yes, again.  That's my choice too.

[-- Attachment #2: throw-thumbnail-frame.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 9724 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: throw-thumbnail-frame-stretched.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 48098 bytes --]

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Javier <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

> I think dealing with frames in windows/mac is much
> more difficult than in linux.  In windows, having
> multiple frames open will overfill the taskbar.
> Window managers in Linux are more powerful and have
> better ways of dealing with multiple frames by
> virtual desktops or iconifying windows.

I didn't know Emacs frames were shown separately in the
taskbar of GUIs. I don't use a WM, and in X I use
Openbox which doesn't come with a taskbar, I think (if
it does, I never saw it, and I'm happy with
that). Perhaps some Gnome or KDE piece of software
synch with Emacs to display not just Emacs, but is
reactive to the state of Emacs as well. If so, it would
be interesting to know how they do that? Is this kept
in a file or otherwise made available to the outside
world?

> Some usefuld keybindings for dealing with frames ...

I don't like your taste in keys (the function and arrow
keys) because of the reach thing I've talked about many
times, but cred for not only writing Elisp but also
sharing it for everyone to see/use!

> (setq pop-up-frames t)

That didn't work for me. Or perhaps I want something
else. I want everything to pop up in the same window,
as it were when the command was invoked, and I don't
that window to change in size.

My case,

(defun new-message ()
  (interactive)
  (if (get-buffer "*Group*") (gnus-post-news 'post "")
    (progn
      (gnus)
      (new-message) )))
      
still (with `pop-up-frames') destroys my two-pane
layout. I guess I need something like (setq
keep-window-layout t)?
      
> You will never again see a split screen unless you
> ask explicitly for it with C-x 2.

I do that so often I have my own shortcut for that:
M-o. And it is DWIM: with one window open, M-o splits
it (and does `other-window'); with two windows open,
M-o is just `other-window':

(defun other-window-or-split ()
  (interactive)
  (if (= 1 (count-windows)) (split-window-vertically))
  (other-window 1) )

I have M-p `delete-other-window' - "o" and "p" are next
to each other, and require minimal hand/finger
movements.

> That has its drawbacks, like completition buffers
> popping up in a new frame.  Sometimes the frames will
> remain in the background and it seems that nothing
> has been opened, specially in console mode.

Completions may be a special case since you are typing
in the minibuffer. I think completion should be avoided
but sometimes I use it as a reference. For that usage,
I suppose the minibuffer and the completion of an
actual command is just in the way. Perhaps the
`apropos' command is better for that usage.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Ken Goldman <kgoldman@us.ibm.com> writes:

> OTOH, the Linux taskbar on the side is broken, at
> least for gnome ...

Yes, there should be many, many taskbars for Linux
systems... some should be highly configurable as
well. I can't name one (or any) that behaves
differently though.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com> writes:

> There's much more reuse than you think.  The normal
> Emacs buffer list, the one tied to C-x C-b is
> list-buffers'.

I was thinking from the user's perspective. For
example, I did some configuration to the
Buffer menu [1] - perhaps those exact things are already
in some of the other alternatives, that I didn't know
of?

From the developer's perspective, I would think that
they know what alternatives are already there.

Nonetheless, code that does (more or less) the same and
looks the same doesn't have to be a case of reuse. It
is possible it was just written the same, twice! Also,
even if it is reused, it can be a slim line between
(proper) reuse for some slightly different purpose and
(improper) reuse which is actually
duplication/redundancy.

I didn't study the code like you did, so I'm not saying
what is the case here - it may be, it isn't in any way
as I describe it.

On the other hand, the only thing that seem to differ
(that has been mentioned so far) are the keys and the
way the windows behave. Isn't that typically something
that should be configurable, not reasons to fork?

As for the selection feature that Dan mentioned, that
seems like something that is generalizable and would
benefit all solutions in this category.

[1] http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/dumps/buffer_menu.png
    http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/conf/emacs-init/buffer-menu.el

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:

> I'm not really trying to set any speed records.

Yeah, me neither for the sake of records. But I always
look for speed and quality: I thought many years ago if
I had those two, I'd be hard to put down in all but all
situation and walks of life. Also, I don't think they
contradict as some people do. I think quantity and
quality are the same. The guy who throws the best
punches is the guy who throws 1000 punches every day...

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:

> I agree.  Way too many buffer thingies.  It's like
> each time someone comes up with an improvement we get
> a new one instead of the original gaining the new
> features and everyone benefiting.

Exactly! Here I think the Unix philosophy applies
100%. For complicated and insanely big (and
super-interactive) software like text editors, e-mail
clients, shells, and so on, it is OK to have Emacs,
vim, Gnus, Rmail, bash, zsh and what have you but for a
small piece of software that does a limited range of
things - it shouldn't be encouraged, put it that way.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> writes:

> If anyone does this please post a photo! :-)

I got the idea from this music video from the 90's, the
German Eurodisco band Sash. Of course, having the
keyboards hang in chains are optional...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEsMhxDVVOk

> Yes.  But at some point the brain can become
> overloaded.  I have some ham radios that have had
> feature creep to the point that they are no longer
> possible to be operated without the manual open
> beside them.  That is bad.  Was it left function,
> right function, then action button?  Or was it push
> and hold left function 1s until beep, then action
> button?  Or right function hold 1s, left function,
> then action?  I have truly awful "computerized" radio
> like that.  Others with less features are more usable
> because sometimes you don't have the manual in front
> of you.

Fatigue is of course a big source of such
"biomechanical" mistakes. At that point you should
probably have a break. At the same time if you have too
much material in your brain you might think fumbling
and stumbling is OK just so the thing gets done, then
the break will be all the more enjoyable as you can
feel good and let all that dissappear completely.

> Actually no.  I am a general aviation pilot (not a
> fighter pilot, I fly taildragges) but the concept for
> fighters is HOTAS.  Hands On Throttle-And-Stick.  Put
> the switches you need on either the throttle or stick
> so they can be reached without removing hands from
> the flight controls.
>
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTAS
>
> Mostly when you do need to manipulate a switch not on
> either throttle or stick you keep one hand on the
> control stick, leave the throttle in the friction
> lock to hold it in place, and use the throttle hand
> to flip switches.  And especially with radios there
> is always a lot of fumbling.

So is there something we text-editor users can learn
from the pilots?

>> I remember a flight simulator for the Mac, F/A-18
>> Hornet. It took up almost the entire keyboard.
>
> Because the keyboard is a general purpose interface for
> human text it doesn't really make a good match to an
> airplane cockpit.  Meaning that it will be more
> complicated because there is a mapping from one to
> another.  The keys are binary.  Most flight controls
> are analog.

The stick and throttle are, I take it the movements are
recoded digitally at some point?

What about the data that are read by the pilots? Are
they typically analog or spelled out with letters and
digits? I think I would prefer analog, more smooth and
relaxed. In a text editor though I can't think of
anything that could be purposely expressed the "analog"
way?

> More and less.  When you are centered in the cockpit
> you can turn your head and look around and everything
> makes sense around you.  But in a game display this
> is difficult to achieve.  Plus the real aircraft
> includes feeling the movement in your seat which also
> gives you clues.  Perhaps it is more like flying an
> RC aircraft.

Interesting. This reminds my of an article I read in
the magazine "High Score". There was a Formula 1 game,
one of the first games for Windows 95, and for this
reason it got some attention. The game was nothing out
of the ordinary, I think. But anyway there was a
profession race car guy they had testing the game. He
said just like you the biggest difference was you get
zero information from your body. He said he didn't have
an advantage playing the game from being a professional
race car driver.

In another article in that magazine, but I think in
another issue, they did the same with a sailboat
simulator. They showed it to some Captain Haddock old
fart and asked if you could learn anything from it, and
he said absolutely not, you should do that in a real
boat. Well of course... problem is, kids don't sit
around boats all day as they do computers. If two kids
were to learn it I absolutely think the kid with the
experience from the simulator would have an advantage -
he would know the terminology, how to process the
instruments, he would have something to relate
(compare) to, and his brain would just have a head
start. Also, a simulator can run different
scenarios. Don't pilots train in simulators all the
time? Why shouldn't aspiring Haddocks do as well? All
said and done, nothing beats the real deal...

>> They say programmers often take to flying when they
>> get rich... (E.g., Woz, speaking of the accursed
>> Apple world.)
>
> When I get rich I will let you know.  Until then
> flying is one of the things keeping me poor.  But I
> wouldn't give up flying for money.  It is the other
> way around.

Configuring Emacs all they long and having the shell
tools and everything behave exactly as you like, and
then do the same to the place you are in while doing
it, tweaking everything, I think computing can be
physically and even more so mentally enjoyable - and it
is a huge difference from a busy office with crap
software and stressed out people running all over the
place - still, compared to what is instinctively and
immediately a joy for almost anyone who ever does it -
I'm not an aviator but to some degree I can imagine - I
don't think it will ever come to that... Mission
Impossible.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Robert Thorpe]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:
> Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com> writes:
...
> I was thinking from the user's perspective. For
> example, I did some configuration to the
> Buffer menu [1] - perhaps those exact things are already
> in some of the other alternatives, that I didn't know
> of?

Yes, ibuffer has some similar features to the ones you've configured
into buffer-menu.

> I didn't study the code like you did, so I'm not saying
> what is the case here - it may be, it isn't in any way
> as I describe it.

As I said, three of the buffer menus mentioned are really the same:
buffer-menu, buffer-menu-other-window and list-buffers.  One,
electric-buffer-list is a keymap variant that depends on the other.
That's not really much repetition.

Personally, I like that they've kept the old ones around because I'm
used to them, as I expect a lot of users are.

That said, ibuffer is separate.  In other areas of Emacs this problem is
worse.  For example there are four code-folding systems and they're all
separate (a simple one in simple.el, hide-show-mode, outline-minor-mode
and allout-mode).  I don't like the profliteration of different browsers
and email systems either.  I'm not going to complain too much though,
because I'm not doing anything about it.  In lots of these cases it
happene because the features started off as independently developed
libraries and were added into Emacs later.

> On the other hand, the only thing that seem to differ
> (that has been mentioned so far) are the keys and the
> way the windows behave. Isn't that typically something
> that should be configurable, not reasons to fork?

Sometimes having a set of different functions that do things slightly
differently is the way that Emacs provides for customization.  To give
another example, C-j will make a newline and indent the next line.
There's a function called reindent-then-newline-and-indent which can be
used instead by remapping it to C-j.

> [1] http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/dumps/buffer_menu.png
>     http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/conf/emacs-init/buffer-menu.el

I like that, I think using different colours is useful.

BR,
Robert Thorpe

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com> writes:

> As I said, three of the buffer menus mentioned are
> really the same: buffer-menu,
> buffer-menu-other-window and list-buffers.  One,
> electric-buffer-list is a keymap variant that depends
> on the other.  That's not really much repetition.

Again, I didn't examine the code so this is more a
discussion of principles. I'm happy people are active
with Emacs but from the little we have heard of the
differences between those tools, and the nature of
those tools (the task they set out to solve), it is my
impression this is optimally something that should be
kept at configuration-basis within a single tool.

> Personally, I like that they've kept the old ones
> around because I'm used to them, as I expect a lot of
> users are.

Of course, the old one, whichever that is, should be
kept, only extended, not forked, preferably. If it
were extended too much for oldtimers, it could be
extended even more, with an --oldtimer option so it
would look just the same, the upstart stuff brought out
of action and made invisible.

> That said, ibuffer is separate.  In other areas of
> Emacs this problem is worse.  For example there are
> four code-folding systems and they're all separate (a
> simple one in simple.el, hide-show-mode,
> outline-minor-mode and allout-mode).

Probably unavoidable for a project of this scale, but
in the case of the buffer lists, it seems like a case
where it could have been avoided, and probably more
easily than many other cases that aren't as
straightforward in purpose and presentation...

> I don't like the profliteration of different browsers
> and email systems either.

Here, I'm ambivalent. Personally I would never want to
do such a project because it would take years and it
would be very uncertain if it would ever reach a level
where people would use it. For all that time, it would
be almost embarrassing to use/develop it as there would
be so many better alternatives around.

Still, in but a few of all those projects, a level of
some humpty-dumpty parity with the other such software
is reached. In the Linux world for example Emacs and
vim, tmux and screen, zsh and bash, Firefox and Opera,
Perl and Python... At that point I say it's healthy to
have such competition.

So in the few cases when you end up with a solid piece
of software, I don't mind there are other such solid
pieces at all. Here, it is rather that those cases are
very few and it is a waste of time for all that don't
get that and are totally unrealistic in their efforts.

But to make a variant of the buffer list is as we have
seen not unrealistic, so for that situation, the
question is rather: were do I put my efforts do the
best use? Here, I don't think having many alternatives
are healthy competition, it is just fragmentation. (But
it is not a cardinal sin. I'm happy whenever people are
active.)

> I'm not going to complain too much though, because
> I'm not doing anything about it.  In lots of these
> cases it happene because the features started off as
> independently developed libraries and were added into
> Emacs later.

Yes, as long as it is great stuff I don't mind anything
being added.

> Sometimes having a set of different functions that do
> things slightly differently is the way that Emacs
> provides for customization.  To give another example,
> C-j will make a newline and indent the next line.
> There's a function called
> reindent-then-newline-and-indent which can be used
> instead by remapping it to C-j.

...what?

> I like that, I think using different colours is
> useful.

Yes, that's something I miss from the default Emacs,
from dired not the least. It should be put to extensive
use but not as amateur configuration. Gnus also looked
very boring at first but was (contrary to dired)
configurable as there are so many gnus- and message-
faces.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Javier]

> I don't like your taste in keys (the function and arrow
> keys) because of the reach thing I've talked about many
> times, but cred for not only writing Elisp but also
> sharing it for everyone to see/use!

[Shift+left/right arrows] is just analogous with the way you move
between virtual ttys in Linux: [Alt+Left/right arrow].  In the window
manager I use [WindowsKey+arrows] to move between virtual desktops.

C-Tab and C-S-Tab are another obvious choice; they would move
between emacs frames in the same way as you move between firefox tabs.

;; navigate frames
(defun other-frame-dec () "" (interactive) (other-frame '+1))
(defun other-frame-inc () "" (interactive) (other-frame '-1))
(global-set-key [C-iso-lefttab] 'other-frame-inc)
(global-set-key [C-S-iso-lefttab] 'other-frame-dec)


> still (with `pop-up-frames') destroys my two-pane
> layout. I guess I need something like (setq
> keep-window-layout t)?

(setq pop-up-frames t) is for never having the frame split in two
windows.  Having two windows in the same frame is the default emacs
behaviour and may be ok for very big screens, but for a small screen
with a big font is not good.

In any case, all these things are a matter of personal taste, and
fortunately emacs gives a lot of freedom to the user to configure
them.  No other program out there gets even close to give the freedom
emacs gives.

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Robert Thorpe]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:
> Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com> writes:
...
>> Sometimes having a set of different functions that do
>> things slightly differently is the way that Emacs
>> provides for customization.  To give another example,
>> C-j will make a newline and indent the next line.
>> There's a function called
>> reindent-then-newline-and-indent which can be used
>> instead by remapping it to C-j.
>
> ...what?

Like I said, Emacs sometimes provides several similar functions as a way
to provide users with options.  Often doing that is simpler than using
variables.  The function "reindent-then-newline-and-indent" indents the
current line, inserts an newline then indents the next line.  Nobody is
going to run that function using M-x, it's there so people can map it to
a key, normally replacing a default function (such as to C-j or RET).
That's why buffer-menu and buffer-menu-other-window are present
too.

BR,
Robert Thorpe

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Javier <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

>> I don't like your taste in keys (the function and
>> arrow keys) because of the reach thing I've talked
>> about many times, but cred for not only writing
>> Elisp but also sharing it for everyone to see/use!
>
> [Shift+left/right arrows] is just analogous with the
> way you move between virtual ttys in Linux:
> [Alt+Left/right arrow].  In the window manager I use
> [WindowsKey+arrows] to move between virtual desktops.

I still don't think it is good. I have changed that for
the ttys to M-j and M-l (using the Emacs notation), and
set it up in X as well (by way of .xbindkeysrc) - check
it out:

http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/conf/remap.inc

> C-Tab and C-S-Tab are another obvious choice; they
> would move between emacs frames in the same way as
> you move between firefox tabs.

TAB is good but your keys are bulky. TAB alone, M-TAB,
and S-TAB (backtab) are good.

> (setq pop-up-frames t) is for never having the frame
> split in two windows.  Having two windows in the same
> frame is the default emacs behaviour and may be ok
> for very big screens, but for a small screen with a
> big font is not good.

What? I restrict my use to two windows because I have
very few lines and very few columns compared to modern
users (27 $LINES and 72 $COLUMNS). "Normal" people with
desktops with huge widescreens and minimal fonts
usually have like ten windows at the same time.

> In any case, all these things are a matter of
> personal taste, and fortunately emacs gives a lot of
> freedom to the user to configure them.  No other
> program out there gets even close to give the freedom
> emacs gives.

I don't know if it is a matter of giving freedom, but
the Emacs architecture with Lisp and all, the result is
what you indicate. Yes, all software should be like
that...

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com> writes:

> Like I said, Emacs sometimes provides several similar
> functions as a way to provide users with options.
> Often doing that is simpler than using variables.
> The function "reindent-then-newline-and-indent"
> indents the current line, inserts an newline then
> indents the next line.  Nobody is going to run that
> function using M-x, it's there so people can map it
> to a key, normally replacing a default function (such
> as to C-j or RET).  That's why buffer-menu and
> buffer-menu-other-window are present too.

You mean something like this:

(defun do-something-big-or-small (big) ...

Configuration-as-a-function:

(defun do-something-big ()
  (interactive)
  (do-something-big-or-small t) )

(defun do-something-small ()
  (interactive)
  (do-something-big-or-small nil) )

That's OK, of course... (?)

-- 
underground experts united

OT: User Interfaces (was: Feeling lost without tabs)

[Bob Proulx]

Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Bob Proulx writes:
> > Yes.  But at some point the brain can become
> > overloaded.  I have some ham radios that have had
> > feature creep to the point that they are no longer
> > possible to be operated without the manual open
> > beside them.  That is bad.  Was it left function,
> > right function, then action button?  Or was it push
> > and hold left function 1s until beep, then action
> > button?  Or right function hold 1s, left function,
> > then action?  I have truly awful "computerized" radio
> > like that.  Others with less features are more usable
> > because sometimes you don't have the manual in front
> > of you.
> 
> Fatigue is of course a big source of such
> "biomechanical" mistakes. At that point you should
> probably have a break. At the same time if you have too
> much material in your brain you might think fumbling
> and stumbling is OK just so the thing gets done, then
> the break will be all the more enjoyable as you can
> feel good and let all that dissappear completely.

Taking a break is all well and good.  But if the interface was your
car and driving it caused that level of fatigue then it would be
counter productive.  Operating a vehicle shouldn't be so stressful as
to be dangerous.  For example we know that to stop you press on the
brake pedal.  Pressing the brake pedal stops the car.  This is easily
learned and doesn't cause fatigue.  And it needs to be easy.

If a childs ball bounces out into the street every driver should be
ready to step on the brake.  Because very frequently a child may soon
be chasing after that ball and running into the street after it.  Be
ready to stop suddenly!

Conversely in a bad user interface example if the brake pedal was
multi functioned and one needed to set the right mode of operation
that would be bad.  Let's say it needed a mode switch.  One mode
caused the pedal to accelerate and another caused it to brake.  And
worse it might not be obvious which is which.  That would be a very
bad thing.  It might require an open user manual to operate.  It would
be dangerous if you could not stop immediately if required.

The Emacs interface is close to this problem.  There is only a limited
number of keys for direct commands.  After that we have all of the C-x
key map.  Then the C-c key map for some modes.  And so forth.
Commands that we execute all of the time are easily remembered.  But
commands that we don't do very often are harder to remember.  But C-g
is always immediately available to interrupt the current action. :-)

> >   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTAS
> 
> So is there something we text-editor users can learn
> from the pilots?

In my mind, yes.  Keep the fingers on the home row of keys.  Make
commands easily executed while keeping the hands in the standard
typing position.  Needing to move the hands from the standard typing
position causes a higher operator workload.

> > Because the keyboard is a general purpose interface for
> > human text it doesn't really make a good match to an
> > airplane cockpit.  Meaning that it will be more
> > complicated because there is a mapping from one to
> > another.  The keys are binary.  Most flight controls
> > are analog.
> 
> The stick and throttle are, I take it the movements are
> recoded digitally at some point?

In the general aviation planes I fly the controls are connected to
steel cables connected to the flight control surfaces directly.  I
push and pull them directly.  It is always analog.

In today's fighters and most new airlines everything is computer
controlled.  Fly by wire.  You provide input and the computer drives
the flight controls.  It will be analog on both ends and digital in
between.

Sometimes this is good because the addition of the computer came make
things more efficient.  Sometimes this is bad because there is no
"feel" to the controls.  No feedback.  For example in Flight 447 crash
the two pilots gave opposite input and the computer averaged their
inputs together which is clearly undesirable.  The two pilots were
opposing each other and did not know it due to lack of feedback.

> What about the data that are read by the pilots? Are
> they typically analog or spelled out with letters and
> digits? I think I would prefer analog, more smooth and
> relaxed. In a text editor though I can't think of
> anything that could be purposely expressed the "analog"
> way?

The traditional instruments are analog.  Usually called "steam
gauges."  Most of the newer instruments are digital.  The analog steam
gauge gives you a pie-chart type of display.  The new digital gauges
with numbers give you a lot of data and require a different type of
learning to deal with what is what.  It is a hotly debated topic as to
which is better.

> Interesting. This reminds my of an article I read in
> the magazine "High Score". There was a Formula 1 game,
> one of the first games for Windows 95, and for this
> reason it got some attention. The game was nothing out
> of the ordinary, I think. But anyway there was a
> profession race car guy they had testing the game. He
> said just like you the biggest difference was you get
> zero information from your body. He said he didn't have
> an advantage playing the game from being a professional
> race car driver.

Exactly.

> In another article in that magazine, but I think in
> another issue, they did the same with a sailboat
> simulator. They showed it to some Captain Haddock old
> fart and asked if you could learn anything from it, and
> he said absolutely not, you should do that in a real
> boat.

Haha.  I both agree and disagree.  To a point you need to learn the
rules first.  Then you need to learn it for real.  The simulator
allows you to learn without causing expensive damage or possibility of
hurting anyone.  But you can reach the end of what you can learn from
the simulator and then you need to move on.

> Well of course... problem is, kids don't sit
> around boats all day as they do computers. If two kids
> were to learn it I absolutely think the kid with the
> experience from the simulator would have an advantage -
> he would know the terminology, how to process the
> instruments, he would have something to relate
> (compare) to, and his brain would just have a head

Simulators are great procedural trainers.  A lot of what is done is
for repetitive learning.  Do the tasks that you need to do again and
again and again so that they become reflex.  Like practicing a musical
score on an instrument.  Practice, practice, practice makes perfect.

For example the new moving map gps systems are quite complex.  The
Garmin G1000 has 101 control inputs!  Burning aviation fuel is
expensive.  It is much better to sit on the ground in a simulator and
learn how to drive the electronics where it is free and you can always
step out and take a break than it is to do so while you are flying and
needing to concentrate on other things like not running into other
airplanes or the ground.

I see people who have a lot of experience flying flight simulators.
They are actually quite good flying under instrument conditions.  For
getting their instrument rating they are definitely ahead.  But the
sim isn't good at recreating a visual approach and landing.  Even on
an instrument approach the GA pilot always lands visually.  (Only the
big guys have zero-zero (visibility-ceiling) landing capability.)  The
sim also isn't good at recreating a crosswind landing environment.
Trying to land a small airplane is just so different that they are
starting from the same starting place as someone who has never flown a
simulator.  Even the new professional sims have enough delay to them
that I don't think they are good enough yet.

> start. Also, a simulator can run different
> scenarios. Don't pilots train in simulators all the
> time? Why shouldn't aspiring Haddocks do as well? All
> said and done, nothing beats the real deal...

Commercial airline pilots are always doing recurrent training.  Much
of that is in really good simulators.  An airline pilot might take a
checkride in a simulator.  It is that real there.  The first time they
fly for real they will have a full load of passengers.  But they will
also have an experienced captain pilot next to them to ensure that
things go safely.  It is the responsibility of the senior captain to
finish the training that was begun in the sim.

General aviation pilots do not have a senior captain.  We only rarely
fly in sims.  We have flight instructors that we fly with to teach and
polish.  Or we might fly with other pilots.  It is only required that
I have three takeoffs and landings in the last 90 days to carry
passengers.  Longer than that and we are required to fly solo and
practice to get re-currant.  And I need a flight review every two
years.  Most pilots I know fly often and do their best to keep their
skills sharp.  There is a saying, "A good pilot is always learning."

> Configuring Emacs all they long and having the shell
> tools and everything behave exactly as you like, and
> then do the same to the place you are in while doing
> it, tweaking everything, I think computing can be
> physically and even more so mentally enjoyable - and it
> is a huge difference from a busy office with crap
> software and stressed out people running all over the
> place - still, compared to what is instinctively and
> immediately a joy for almost anyone who ever does it -
> I'm not an aviator but to some degree I can imagine - I
> don't think it will ever come to that... Mission
> Impossible.

Both computers and flying is fun.  But they are different types of fun.

This is getting really off topic so this will probably be my last
comment on this but...  I just got back from the EAA AirVenture Fly-In
in Oshkosh.  It is aviation heaven.  Search for it if you are
interested.  10,000-15,000 airplanes fly in for the convention.  I
flew in with my taildragger.  Then among other things I volunteered
and helped to park arrivals.  An aweome experience!  It is impossible
to describe to the non-enthusiast.  Fun!  :-)

Bob

Re: OT: User Interfaces (was: Feeling lost without tabs)

[Emanuel Berg]

Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> writes:

> It is impossible to describe to the non-enthusiast.
> Fun! :-)

Thank you for that post. I don't know if it was that
off topic. I recommend it to anyone on this list who
hasn't read it.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Marcin Borkowski]

Dnia 2014-07-19, o godz. 18:47:47
Sampath Weerasinghe <swe20144@gmail.com> napisał(a):

> Hi,
> 
> I'm slowly migrating from notepad++ to emacs.
> 
> I feel a bit lost because emacs doesn't show
> tabs. I work on multiple projects, I get distracted by various things,
> but when I come back to the seat it is the tabs that
> remind me which project I was last working on.
> 
> I know C-x C-b pops it up, but involves multiple keys and it also
> takes a a lot of screen real estate.
> 
> I'm wondering how others overcame this.

Just my 2cents:
http://mbork.pl/2014-04-04_Fast_buffer_switching_and_friends
and C-z C-b and/or C-u C-z C-b are surprisingly useful for me.

> -Sam

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[swe20144]

It's been almost 1.5 years, After trying various alternatives like tabbar mode,
I've finally gotten used to C-x b
Surprisingly, I like it.  Now I'm trying to bring this to the other application I spend a lot of time on: my web browser.

I usually have about 20 web browser tabs open at any given time, and using the mouse
to go to a specific tab just breaks my flow. I'm sure it's the same for other people.
How do you guys overcome this? Is there a chrome extension I haven't learnt about
yet?

I found two extensions Emacsome and ChromEmacs, with the first one attempting to do what I want (but not going all the way)

If there's none out there, I guess I will just be hacking/forking Emacsome to add the features I like
to see.
Basically
   C-x b   to switch buffers with helm/ido like autocompletion
               Inside it, C-n and C-p to browse the suggestions

Is the author of Emacsome in here by any chance?
(the repo hasn't been updated since 2012)

Sam









On Saturday, July 19, 2014 at 6:47:47 PM UTC-7, Sampath Weerasinghe wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm slowly migrating from notepad++ to emacs.
> 
> I feel a bit lost because emacs doesn't show
> tabs. I work on multiple projects, I get distracted by various things,
> but when I come back to the seat it is the tabs that
> remind me which project I was last working on.
> 
> I know C-x C-b pops it up, but involves multiple keys and it also
> takes a a lot of screen real estate.
> 
> I'm wondering how others overcame this.
> 
> -Sam

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Dan Espen]

swe20144@gmail.com writes:

> It's been almost 1.5 years, After trying various alternatives like tabbar mode,
> I've finally gotten used to C-x b
> Surprisingly, I like it.  Now I'm trying to bring this to the other application I spend a lot of time on: my web browser.
>
> I usually have about 20 web browser tabs open at any given time, and using the mouse
> to go to a specific tab just breaks my flow. I'm sure it's the same for other people.
> How do you guys overcome this? Is there a chrome extension I haven't learnt about
> yet?
>
> I found two extensions Emacsome and ChromEmacs, with the first one attempting to do what I want (but not going all the way)
>
> If there's none out there, I guess I will just be hacking/forking Emacsome to add the features I like
> to see.
> Basically
>    C-x b   to switch buffers with helm/ido like autocompletion
>                Inside it, C-n and C-p to browse the suggestions
>
> Is the author of Emacsome in here by any chance?
> (the repo hasn't been updated since 2012)

Not clear to me what your question is.
But if you like the default buffer list,
I think you'll like electric-buffer-list more:

http://emacswiki.org/emacs/ElectricBufferList

-- 
Dan Espen

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Yuri Khan]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:07 PM,  <swe20144@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's been almost 1.5 years, After trying various alternatives like tabbar mode,
> I've finally gotten used to C-x b
> Surprisingly, I like it.  Now I'm trying to bring this to the other application I spend a lot of time on: my web browser.
[…]
> Is there a chrome extension I haven't learnt about
> yet?

If you are not particularly attached to Chrome, then maybe look at
Conkeror (not to be confused with Konqueror).

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Filipp Gunbin]

On 03/11/2015 06:07 -0800, swe20144@gmail.com wrote:

> It's been almost 1.5 years, After trying various alternatives like tabbar mode,
> I've finally gotten used to C-x b

When I started using Emacs I didn't know that I can use isearch in
minibuffer.  When I found that possibility, things became simpler.  I
frequently think that things like that probably should be mentioned in
manual / tutorial somewhere near the beginning...

> Surprisingly, I like it.  Now I'm trying to bring this to the other application I spend a lot of time on: my web browser.
>
> I usually have about 20 web browser tabs open at any given time, and using the mouse
> to go to a specific tab just breaks my flow. I'm sure it's the same for other people.
> How do you guys overcome this? Is there a chrome extension I haven't learnt about
> yet?

Maybe there's a chance to change your workflow?  I wonder what may
require more than 5 tabs at the same moment.

I remember trying Conkeror browser (http://conkeror.org) and Firefox
plugins for Emacs keys, it seemed unnatural for me.  So I switched to
emacs-w3m for all text pages (manuals, references - work materials
mostly).  I even switched off tabs in emacs-w3m for the browser
"windows" to act like normal Emacs buffers, which they are (but I use
`w3m-select-buffer' a lot).

Filipp

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Dirk-Jan C. Binnema]

On Tuesday Nov 03 2015, Yuri Khan wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:07 PM,  <swe20144@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's been almost 1.5 years, After trying various alternatives like tabbar mode,
>> I've finally gotten used to C-x b
>> Surprisingly, I like it.  Now I'm trying to bring this to the other application I spend a lot of time on: my web browser.
> […]
>> Is there a chrome extension I haven't learnt about
>> yet?
>
> If you are not particularly attached to Chrome, then maybe look at
> Conkeror (not to be confused with Konqueror).

Conkeror is nice, but can be a bit difficult to combine with other
Firefox extensions.

However, there is an extension "Keysnail" for Firefox which gives you a
regular Firefox with some emacs-like behaviors added to that (including
the "C-x b" binding).

Keysnail has its own plugins, and e.g. the "HoK" one is quite nice,
giving you on-screen shortcuts for access links through your keyboard,
just like Conkeror (and ace-jump-mode, eno etc. in emacs) do.

https://github.com/mooz/keysnail/wiki

Cheers,
Dirk.

-- 
Dirk-Jan C. Binnema                  Helsinki, Finland
e:djcb@djcbsoftware.nl           w:www.djcbsoftware.nl
pgp: D09C E664 897D 7D39 5047 A178 E96A C7A1 017D DA3C

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Aziz Yemloul]

swe20144@gmail.com writes:

> It's been almost 1.5 years, After trying various alternatives like tabbar mode,
> I've finally gotten used to C-x b
> Surprisingly, I like it.  Now I'm trying to bring this to the other application I spend a lot of time on: my web browser.

Conkeror is awesome, it's my default web browser. M-n and M-p to go to
next and previous tab like i do in tabbar-mode in emacs and
w3m tabs inside emacs. it have the C-x b key-binding to switch to
desired tab, C-x f to find a new url in new buffer.

hope you'll try it

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Charles Philip Chan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 714 bytes --]

swe20144@gmail.com writes:

> I found two extensions Emacsome and ChromEmacs, with the first one
> attempting to do what I want (but not going all the way)
>
> If there's none out there, I guess I will just be hacking/forking
> Emacsome to add the features I like to see.  Basically C-x b to switch
> buffers with helm/ido like autocompletion Inside it, C-n and C-p to
> browse the suggestions

Don't know about Chrome, but for Firefox, one can configure keysnail:

      https://github.com/mooz/keysnail/wiki

to do this.

Charles

-- 
"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development
That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb.  Thank you."
(By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 180 bytes --]

editing, searching minibuffer content [was: Feeling lost without tabs]

[Drew Adams]

> When I started using Emacs I didn't know that I can use isearch in
> minibuffer.  When I found that possibility, things became simpler.  I
> frequently think that things like that probably should be mentioned in
> manual / tutorial somewhere near the beginning...

Yes.  It is not as well known as it could be that you can generally
edit the contents of the minibuffer.  And that includes Isearch.

There are only a few keys that have other than their usual meanings
in the minibuffer keymaps.

Unfortunately some of those few keys are commonly used for editing,
and some of them are even normally self-inserting.  They could be
(and except for `RET' _should_ be, IMO) just self-inserting in the
minibuffer also: `?', `SPC', `C-j' (newline).

(After a few decades Emacs finally allowed `SPC' to self-insert,
but only for file-name completion.)

Add to this the fact that some people use Ido or similar, which
reduces normal editing of minibuffer content even further, and
it is little wonder that many users do not realize that the
minibuffer is an editable buffer - a place where you can edit
text in many of the usual ways.

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Michael Heerdegen]

"Dirk-Jan C. Binnema" <djcb@djcbsoftware.nl> writes:

> However, there is an extension "Keysnail" for Firefox which gives you a
> regular Firefox with some emacs-like behaviors added to that (including
> the "C-x b" binding).

+1 for Keysnail, I'm a user too.  But I don't have such a command here.
What command is bound to C-x b in your setup?


Thanks,

Michael.

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Charles Philip Chan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 349 bytes --]

Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de> writes:

> +1 for Keysnail, I'm a user too.  But I don't have such a command
> here.  What command is bound to C-x b in your setup?

You need the "Tanything" plugin for Keysnail. The default keybinding is
"a".

Charles

-- 
"Whip me.  Beat me.  Make me maintain AIX."
(By Stephan Zielinski)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 180 bytes --]

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Bob Proulx]

swe20144@gmail.com wrote:
> ... Now I'm trying to bring this to the other application I spend a
> lot of time on: my web browser.
> 
> I usually have about 20 web browser tabs open at any given time, and using the mouse
> to go to a specific tab just breaks my flow. I'm sure it's the same for other people.
> How do you guys overcome this? Is there a chrome extension I haven't learnt about
> yet?

The best Chrome/Chromium plugin for me is the Vimium plugin.  It is
designed to bring vim keys to the web browser.  But it is
configurable.  And some Emacs keys have always been available in vi
too and are therefore available immediately in Chromium with Vimium.
Check it out as you might like it.

Unfortunately Chrome's architecture means that plugins cannot work
outside of "external" pages.  Therefore nothing can be perfect as a
plugin.  But it is better than not having it there.

Also I customize my X Window System environment and set:

  gtk-key-theme-name = "Emacs" 

With that in my ~/.gtkrc-2.0 file everything that uses GTK widgets
will use Emacs key bindings by default.  That means C-l to get to the
URL location bar and then C-b, C-f, and so forth all work as in Emacs
in Firefox, Chrome, other.  "The way it should be." :-)

Bob

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Michael Heerdegen]

Charles Philip Chan <cpchan@bell.net> writes:

> You need the "Tanything" plugin for Keysnail. The default keybinding
> is "a".

Great, thanks.

For the record: use this to make it work globally with C-x b:

  key.setGlobalKey(['C-x', 'b'], function (ev, arg) {
      ext.exec("tanything", arg);
  }, "View all tabs", true);


Regards,

Michael.

Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Kendall Shaw]

Doubly different than what you asked for, but vimperator in the "a 
script has become unresponsive" browser, is what I use. g0 goes to first 
tab. g$ goes to last. t creates a new tab.

Kendall

On 11/03/2015 06:07 AM, swe20144@gmail.com wrote:
>
> It's been almost 1.5 years, After trying various alternatives like tabbar mode,
> I've finally gotten used to C-x b
> Surprisingly, I like it.  Now I'm trying to bring this to the other application I spend a lot of time on: my web browser.
>
> I usually have about 20 web browser tabs open at any given time, and using the mouse
> to go to a specific tab just breaks my flow. I'm sure it's the same for other people.
> How do you guys overcome this? Is there a chrome extension I haven't learnt about
> yet?
>
> I found two extensions Emacsome and ChromEmacs, with the first one attempting to do what I want (but not going all the way)
>
> If there's none out there, I guess I will just be hacking/forking Emacsome to add the features I like
> to see.
> Basically
>     C-x b   to switch buffers with helm/ido like autocompletion
>                 Inside it, C-n and C-p to browse the suggestions
>
> Is the author of Emacsome in here by any chance?
> (the repo hasn't been updated since 2012)
>
> Sam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, July 19, 2014 at 6:47:47 PM UTC-7, Sampath Weerasinghe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm slowly migrating from notepad++ to emacs.
>>
>> I feel a bit lost because emacs doesn't show
>> tabs. I work on multiple projects, I get distracted by various things,
>> but when I come back to the seat it is the tabs that
>> remind me which project I was last working on.
>>
>> I know C-x C-b pops it up, but involves multiple keys and it also
>> takes a a lot of screen real estate.
>>
>> I'm wondering how others overcame this.
>>
>> -Sam
>