From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: binding ibuffer to C-x C-b by default Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:51:10 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <8739sgq4wh.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <87eic1orhx.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1286538700 11846 80.91.229.12 (8 Oct 2010 11:51:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:51:40 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 08 13:51:38 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P4BU3-00017c-Jt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:51:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56137 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P4BU2-00067X-Uy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 07:51:30 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43120 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P4BTv-000617-Ey for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 07:51:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P4BTs-0000Lq-Ih for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 07:51:23 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:40512) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P4BTs-0000KQ-6S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 07:51:20 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P4BTq-00012G-Fw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:51:18 +0200 Original-Received: from p508ed153.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.142.209.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:51:18 +0200 Original-Received: from dak by p508ed153.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:51:18 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 40 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p508ed153.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZiP5IKqRYPudHzQL9+3MWpa7/28= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:131486 Archived-At: Deniz Dogan writes: > 2010/10/8 David Kastrup : >> Deniz Dogan writes: >> >>> 2010/10/7 Dan Nicolaescu : >>>> >>>> This was discussed briefly a few years ago and Stefan (and other >>>> people) agreed with it: how about we map ibuffer to C-x C-b by default >>>> in Emacs-24? >>>> >>>> ibuffer is a superset of list-buffers, and it provides many things >>>> that list-buffers does not. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> If a significant majority of experienced Emacs users prefer to use >>> ibuffer instead of list-buffers (which is what I believe) what is the >>> problem with making this change? >> >> Thinking like a suitor rather than a programmer. >> >> Making a choice between two different feature sets that both have >> deficiencies is the wrong thing to do if we can instead create a version >> that does not contain the particular weaknesses of either. >> > > Binding C-x C-b only changes a key binding. And marriage only changes a soul binding. > This has nothing to do with modifying list-buffers or ibuffer, neither > does it affect anyone with the intentions of doing that. You propose a divorce from C-x C-b with list-buffers, and a remarriage with ibuffer. Namely making a choice rather than an improvement to either. -- David Kastrup