Re: binding ibuffer to C-x C-b by default

[Deniz Dogan <deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com>]

2010/10/8 David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>:
> Deniz Dogan <deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 2010/10/8 David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>:
>>> Deniz Dogan <deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> 2010/10/7 Dan Nicolaescu <dann@gnu.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>

Don't dramatize the change of a key binding by comparing it to divorce
and marriage.

Nothing stops anyone from changing (or possibly even merging) ibuffer
or buffer-menu if we change C-x C-b to ibuffer.

It appears that this topic has been discussed back and forth for at
least seven years already, but you are still hoping that someone
actually makes the effort to merge the two into a "Frankenstein". I
can't see that happening any time soon, so let's be pragmatic about
it.

-- 
Deniz Dogan