From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: [solved]: Re: Finding last *Async Shell Command* buffer? Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 15:37:48 +0300 Message-ID: <83sg4ioztv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87k0puihrd.fsf@robertthorpeconsulting.com> <838s6aqtlv.fsf@gnu.org> <8335wiqrek.fsf@gnu.org> <831rc2qi35.fsf@gnu.org> <83tuoyp2t1.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="16721"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 26 13:38:10 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lPlj8-0004EY-Du for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 13:38:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57668 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lPlj7-00009z-D1 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 08:38:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56256) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lPlim-00009s-Uc for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 08:37:48 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:33320) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lPlim-0004hw-Lo for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 08:37:48 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:2283 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lPlim-0003t9-7t for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 08:37:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Jean Louis on Fri, 26 Mar 2021 14:48:49 +0300) X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:128619 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 14:48:49 +0300 > From: Jean Louis > Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org > > > > Sure, that is clear. I also refer to buffers like that. But how they > > > get assigned their number on the end like *Async Shell Command*<141> > > > it does not matter, so it could be 39 or 175, it does not matter. > > > > Doesn't matter for your use case. But not necessarily for others. > > I wish I could understand the practical usage you describe. Why do you need to understand it? Isn't it clear, up front, that changing some old behavior runs a clear risk of breaking someone's habits or code that relies on that behavior? E.g., suppose that some Lisp program out there relies on the fact that killing buffer "foo<10>" followed by creating a new buffer "foo" yields again "foo<10"? Is such a program not legitimate? > Currently programmer cannot know that buffer with exact number <3> was > created when a system command is invoked by using M-&. Of course, he can: just scan the numbers in use, and you will know which number will be used next.