Re: Buffers with buffers (transclusion)

[Suhail Singh <suhailsingh247@gmail.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > E.g., if you type text between the end of SRC1 and the beginning of
>> > SRC2, to which source is this added?
>> 
>> Couldn't this be obviated by there being a read-only substrate, embedded
>> within which are editable regions corresponding to SRC1 and SRC2?  I.e.,
>> SRC1 and SRC2 are separated by a region of text that cannot be modified.
>
> I don't see how will that help, nor how it will resolve the
> difficulties I was describing.

It would resolve the difficulties by disallowing the premise.  I.e., one
wouldn't be allowed to "type text between the end of SRC1 and the
beginning of SRC2".

>> From my perspective, the value of a single such "meta" buffer is purely
>> in the UI.
>
> Then using adjacent windows solves that, IMO.

It's not clear that when you say "solves that", that we mean the same
thing by "that".  Consider all the buffer navigation and modification
commands.  If a desired criterion is for the UI to not require the user
to remember alternate commands/keybindings, how would that work?  For
instance, the idea would be for M-x occur in the "meta" buffer to do
something like multi-occur.  How would this work with adjacent windows?

On a related note, part of the buffer-in-buffer idea (to me) implies a
way of specifying buffers (and regions therein) of interest.  The
challenge being in making said specification (somewhat) stable across
revisions.  I.e., naive linking via absolute line numbers wouldn't be
sufficient.

-- 
Suhail