Re: Separate area at the top for a serious tab bar

[Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> R. Diez wrote:
> > A tabbar does not preclude other buffer switching methods. I often
> > have many buffers open. But I tend to keep the "local context" (the
> > tabs that are visible right now) sorted (.h left from .cpp and so
> > on).
> >
> > I would not underestimate this kind of usability matter. It may
> > well be one of the biggest factors driving people away from
> > Emacs. It could even be a necessary evil until most people learn
> > to do away with the tabbar. Humans are just like that.
> 
> FWIW, I consider tabbar to be in the same class as line numbers: while
> not really an Emacs'y thing, at least not for us veteran curmudgeons,
> they are very popular in some quarters, and if we want to make those
> people happy, we should have them.

I like your thinking here.

I feel compelled to note that no one has mentioned the "speedbar"
interface here.  There is an entire another camp of speedbar followers
too.  Yet another way to manage and switch files and buffers.

I have myself been a very longtime user of electric-buffer-mode bound
to the list-buffers key C-x C-b.  I guess I should review ibuffer
given the recommendations for it here.  So far it looks like a
somewhat fancier electric-buffer-mode.  I am working with lower
resolution displays these days (not by choice, but by small portable
laptops now being short on vertical pixels, life is a compromise) and
therefore anything that robs me of vertical space is bad.  If it uses
vertical space then it needs to be very useful or it must be removed
in order to give the pixels to the text that is being displayed.

Bob