From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Xah Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: How to get rid of *GNU Emacs* buffer on start-up? Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 05:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <3515919b-02ad-4724-9e94-2db1de6fe851@s20g2000prd.googlegroups.com> References: <873ajzwoqu.fsf@kobe.laptop> <823901dd-c54c-4e3b-b6ad-512d52724a46@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com> <87ljxoffs6.fsf@atthis.clsnet.nl> <31ddf1ec-5b63-4005-9c9e-d0006a44408e@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1222432899 1306 80.91.229.12 (26 Sep 2008 12:41:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:41:39 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 26 14:42:33 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KjCdi-0002AX-Vy for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:41:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35860 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KjCcg-0001pt-9P for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:40:38 -0400 Original-Path: news.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews.google.com!s20g2000prd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 84 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.6.185.159 Original-X-Trace: posting.google.com 1222432750 21763 127.0.0.1 (26 Sep 2008 12:39:10 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:39:10 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: s20g2000prd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.6.185.159; posting-account=bRPKjQoAAACxZsR8_VPXCX27T2YcsyMA User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10_4_11; en) AppleWebKit/525.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Safari/525.22, gzip(gfe), gzip(gfe) Original-Xref: news.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:162765 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:58107 Archived-At: On Sep 25, 9:52 pm, Kevin Rodgers wrote: > In Emacs, you can create a buffer without making it the current buffer > and/or without displaying it. Yes, but that's used in elisp coding only. For interactive use, it is of little use to create a new buffer and not have it in front. > The *scratch* buffer _is_ special: If you kill it, it is > regenerated, right, but that's being special because it is special. Kinda tautology. If you follow my proposal, that specialness of scratch due to its regenaration is not needed. > and its major mode is determined by initial-major-mode. > No other buffer respects that variable. > In contrast, the major mode of the new *scratch* buffers is > determined by default-major-mode. Ok. But when *scratch* buffer is no longer there as my proposal, perhaps emacs don't need initial-major-mode anymore. (a simplification without reducing power!) Or, initial-major-mode can still be used for whatever other purposes it may have had. in my previous message i said: =C2=ABBut, as i detailed, since scratch is simply a new buffer, and since now you can create multiple scratches, it ceases to be one special buffer emacs called *scratch*.=C2=BB Note the word: =E2=80=9Cceases=E2=80=9D. really, please have a open mind and really try to see the other side of the coin. > I do not agree that it would be better to eliminate the *scratch* buffer > in deference to a create-new-buffer command. asides from the above points (which i give a counter now), why do you not agree? > I do not know which Emacs > developers think *scratch* has problems, or what those alleged problems > are. In this thread, Alan has expressed such a opinion after lengthy debate, as well as another (i think it was Nikolaj). They admitted, or tentatively said, at least, that if scratch is a usability problem, it is just a minor, trivial one. Please, have a open mind and read the thread, as opposed to everyone trying to win a argument and i more or less repeat every part of my original writing by rephrasing in every reply. > You can pry the *scratch* buffer from my cold, dead fingers. :-) How about this... most, if not all, oppositions to the proposal goes from the point of view of defending scratch. How about give me some reasons why the proposal is not better than the scratch way? For example, by the proposal, any emacs old time users can simply create a scratch by a keyboard shortcut assigned to create-new-buffer. create-new-buffer can create new buffer by initial-major-mode or default-major-mode, whichever you might think is better. The create- new-buffer can have a binding of maybe C-x c. It can be used to create multiple buffers for scratch purposes. If you don't like the =E2=80=9Cuntitled=E2=80=9D name, you could say it should be =E2=80=9C*scrat= ch*=E2=80=9D. Why do you not like these? What reason, would you think, that this is not better than say emacs staying unchanged, or your proposal of switch-to-new- scratch-buffer? Following the above train of thought, perhaps than you don't have objections now? Is it just the =E2=80=9Cuntiled=E2=80=9D name that you guys= didn't think is good? Or is it that you guys really think switch-to-new- scratch-buffer is a better name than create-new-buffer? Xah =E2=88=91 http://xahlee.org/ =E2=98=84