From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Zachary Kanfer Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9761: proposed list-buffers change -- revert buffer if point is in *Buffer List* buffer Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:00:55 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87r52e89di.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51dd7d5e9bde204af5a28a4 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1318701751 10851 80.91.229.12 (15 Oct 2011 18:02:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:02:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 9761@debbugs.gnu.org To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 15 20:02:27 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RF8Z1-0004zX-4w for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 20:02:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60644 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RF8Z0-0008UA-Em for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:02:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:55104) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RF8Yw-0008Tx-Ra for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:02:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RF8Yv-0001xu-AV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:02:22 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:45523) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RF8Yv-0001xm-1v for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:02:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RF8ZZ-00020x-Le for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:03:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Zachary Kanfer Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:03:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9761 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 9761-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9761.13187017247674 (code B ref 9761); Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:03:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9761) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Oct 2011 18:02:04 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RF8Ye-0001zi-Aw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:02:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com ([209.85.213.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RF8Yb-0001zC-Vc for 9761@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:02:03 -0400 Original-Received: by ywb26 with SMTP id 26so506196ywb.3 for <9761@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:01:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=y3k6/f8m2m+TI0+U/p/eLGsoI2CGUiTGiZDqI6aKmnk=; b=u+G5NlXGA5t+0GXpJwytiqENbbj4q7lYqGO62to9C+tlDillcqFoMRtZJOucYhU4vg tzb1mirWT1JcuA7wCkBwWKAxnvErPQj0zZm1P/HpE5qp6jtdKVK1h1Vvn5WJUaPoF++m 40rBfgdIMwTbJB22CBC72U5P4wY4WfBdrah4k= Original-Received: by 10.68.16.196 with SMTP id i4mr25219466pbd.97.1318701675166; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:01:15 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.142.212.16 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:00:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87r52e89di.fsf@stupidchicken.com> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:03:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:52669 Archived-At: --bcaec51dd7d5e9bde204af5a28a4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I agree -- less surprising is better. To me, that means *not* moving point when it's called again. It makes it easier for the user to answer the question "what's changed?", which, at least for me, is a common question when I already have a buffer list window open. Would you be in favor of this change if I can use Martin's suggestion so that the behavior is the same no matter if point is in the Buffer List buffer or not? You are right, though -- the user can call revert-buffer (which is bound to 'g' in Buffer Menu mode) if desired. But for calling `list-buffers', I think that for the vast majority of cases, keeping point where it is is either superior to putting it at the bottom, or just as good. I can't think of too many cases where moving point to the bottom of the buffer is better. -Zachary On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Chong Yidong wrote: > Zachary Kanfer writes: > > > The command list-buffers always puts point at the end of the > > buffer. This patch changes the list-buffers command to simply revert > > the buffer if point is inside the *Buffer List* buffer. Since point is > > kept at the same line, the user can more easily see what changes have > > occurred. > > This doesn't seem like a good idea. It is better for `list-buffers' to > behave as unsurprisingly as possible, i.e. regardless of whether it's > called from a buffer list. > > After all, the user can always call revert-buffer if that's what's > desired. > > --bcaec51dd7d5e9bde204af5a28a4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree -- less surprising is better. To me, that means *not* moving point = when it's called again. It makes it easier for the user to answer the q= uestion "what's changed?", which, at least for me, is a commo= n question when I already have a buffer list window open. Would you be in f= avor of this change if I can use Martin's suggestion so that the behavi= or is the same no matter if point is in the Buffer List buffer or not?

You are right, though -- the user can call revert-buffer (which is boun= d to 'g' in Buffer Menu mode) if desired. But for calling `list-buf= fers', I think that for the vast majority of cases, keeping point where= it is is either superior to putting it at the bottom, or just as good. I c= an't think of too many cases where moving point to the bottom of the bu= ffer is better.

-Zachary

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:14= PM, Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> wrote:
Zachary Kanfer <zkanfer@gmail.com> writes:

> The command list-buffers always puts point at the end of the
> buffer. This patch changes the list-buffers command to simply revert > the buffer if point is inside the *Buffer List* buffer. Since point is=
> kept at the same line, the user can more easily see what changes have<= br> > occurred.

This doesn't seem like a good idea. =A0It is better for `list-buffers&#= 39; to
behave as unsurprisingly as possible, i.e. regardless of whether it's called from a buffer list.

After all, the user can always call revert-buffer if that's what's<= br> desired.


--bcaec51dd7d5e9bde204af5a28a4--