From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: binding ibuffer to C-x C-b by default Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:29:11 +0900 Message-ID: <878w29a5ns.fsf@catnip.gol.com> References: <8F022F3B2C5D4C2AB8A90CBDD7660FF1@us.oracle.com> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1286497776 24407 80.91.229.12 (8 Oct 2010 00:29:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 00:29:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Dan Nicolaescu , Drew Adams , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Deniz Dogan Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 08 02:29:33 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 1P40pz-0006aK-BV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:29:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43616 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P40pu-0005Kx-Cf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:29:22 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58631 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P40po-0005Kn-D9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:29:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P40pn-0003S5-C1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:29:16 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp12.dentaku.gol.com ([203.216.5.74]:58719) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P40pl-0003R3-SQ; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:29:14 -0400 Original-Received: from 218.231.154.125.eo.eaccess.ne.jp ([218.231.154.125] helo=catnip.gol.com) by smtp12.dentaku.gol.com with esmtpa (Dentaku) id 1P40pk-0004Vo-J5; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:29:12 +0900 Original-Received: by catnip.gol.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B143ADF8C; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 09:29:11 +0900 (JST) System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: (Deniz Dogan's message of "Thu, 7 Oct 2010 22:54:16 +0200") Original-Lines: 27 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV GOL (outbound) X-Abuse-Complaints: abuse@gol.com 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:131448 Archived-At: Deniz Dogan writes: > Why do you disagree? Drew is technically correct, in that it's not a _perfect_ superset. But it's so damned close that 99% of the users will never even notice that something's changed, and I'd guess that the number of people that will benefit from the additional functionality/features will vastly outstrip those who are devastated that their favorite list-buffers keybinding has changed. Some of the differences are fairly easy to fix -- e.g., list-buffers uses whizzy new-style header-line headers, whereas ibuffer uses oldskool simple fixed-width headers. Some of the keybinding differences can also easily be resolved; the only hard cases are a few keybindings that can't be made compatible because ibuffer uses those keys for something else. Anyway, as I say, while the differences exist, they're for the most part simply irrelevant. The right thing to do is to simply switch to ibuffer, and then fix stuff up as the need arises (or somebody gets the itch to do so). -Miles -- Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time. -- Steven Wright