From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Deniz Dogan Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: binding ibuffer to C-x C-b by default Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:19:50 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87eic1orhx.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <8739sgq4wh.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1286540440 24511 80.91.229.12 (8 Oct 2010 12:20:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:20:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 08 14:20:38 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 1P4Bw9-00028T-9z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:20:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41685 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P4Bw9-0007aJ-1A for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 08:20:33 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49891 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P4Bw0-0007Yn-BC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 08:20:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P4Bvy-0006k5-Ql for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 08:20:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pz0-f41.google.com ([209.85.210.41]:64203) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P4Bvy-0006jn-Jl; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 08:20:22 -0400 Original-Received: by pzk26 with SMTP id 26so495332pzk.0 for ; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 05:20:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QxjujwdbS4h7MgSElzt71UqdoHCF/7UmjFUUFWpHjPs=; b=V58aQZ6q9rvw+cJLF5DwgfP1zHhfnxkk/Snxc4jOhogIfQo0H1lvD/2uShhX69YPc3 2AM9MJL9+VXOlQPElLYrgmlkP8dLKfz8lSzVaacmzL452qX75iqeKlGGaXj1/raQBEnF zmlqcP8jFOtL2SNgEruyUlJ8dOqlGKI6aILNY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=YJONsAcEtllKJTLXOG74A3hGoyHWLpTgt9utVSYER80NOwefUYj2YPUQbWAi1vy9ho ZrUhPCgyJliTkk5bL/6kPqAE6IshHhzWnXn+NuxX1MeLHJp3rc9I0e3cb7iR8h6/Mydg EgGnjIpGui4+m+LYjA+RrFo0Xmr76hx7jT+Pg= Original-Received: by 10.142.139.11 with SMTP id m11mr1885964wfd.151.1286540421593; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 05:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.231.17.66 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 05:19:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:131489 Archived-At: 2010/10/8 Deniz Dogan : > 2010/10/8 David Kastrup : >> 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 defau= lt >>>>>> 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 versi= on >>>> 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. =A0Namely 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 In fact, I just found this from 2001: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2001-12/msg00546.html So it seems that the intention back then was to obsolete buff-menu in favor of ibuffer (and in doing so change C-x C-b to ibuffer, of course). I'm not sure that this ever happened. --=20 Deniz Dogan