bug#461: delete-window means "get out of my face" even for sole window

bug#461: delete-window means "get out of my face" even for sole window

[jidanni]

Ah, why of course: C-x 0 (delete-window) issued when there is only one
window, should reveal the next best buffer.

Why? Because when the user types C-x 0, he is saying "get out of my
face", and emacs should do what he means. Indeed, it should be just
like he hit C-x b RET, picking the default buffer prompted with.
(I say don't prompt him on C-x 0, but you could if you insist.)

And don't bury the old buffer, just move it one down in the list.

Currently C-x 0 gives
"Attempt to delete minibuffer or sole ordinary window"

I am only discussing "sole ordinary window". As far as deleting the
minibuffer, that should still be illegal.

bug#461: delete-window means "get out of my face" even for sole window

[Stefan Monnier]

tag 461 +wontfix
thanks

> Why? Because when the user types C-x 0, he is saying "get out of my
> face", and emacs should do what he means.  Indeed, it should be just
> like he hit C-x b RET, picking the default buffer prompted with.
> (I say don't prompt him on C-x 0, but you could if you insist.)

There's already "C-x b RET", "C-x <right>", "C-x <left>" and probably
several other ways to do what you want, so I see no need to change
C-x 0 in the way you suggest.

C-x 0 currently doesn't care about buffers, only about windows, so your
"extension" doesn't seem very natural to me.  A more natural extension
would be to indeed delete the sole window by exiting (or maybe sticking
around waiting for emacsclient connections in case you've started the
emacs-server).


        Stefan

bug#461: delete-window means "get out of my face" even for sole window

[Glenn Morris]

I don't see a need to keep open this particular report, which was marked
"wontfix" some time ago.

Stefan Monnier wrote:

> There's already "C-x b RET", "C-x <right>", "C-x <left>" and probably
> several other ways to do what you want, so I see no need to change
> C-x 0 in the way you suggest.
>
> C-x 0 currently doesn't care about buffers, only about windows, so your
> "extension" doesn't seem very natural to me.