Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

["Jarosław Rzeszótko" <jrzeszotko@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3014 bytes --]

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 3:28 AM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
wrote:

> > I have a file open in a buffer in front of me. I want to rename this file
> > and have the buffer be changed accordingly: it should now be visiting the
> > file under the new name.
> >
> > rename-file will instead:
> > - rename the file but do nothing with the buffer, if I now save the
> buffer
> > it will get saved under the old file name. The buffer still visits the
> file
> > under the old name.
>
> That's how it works currently.  But we're talking about making changes.
>
> > - it will also first prompt for a file to rename, while I want to rename
> > the file I am currently editing in a buffer, along with the buffer.
>
> Right.  That's why I suggested to use C-x C-w for this particular case.
> (but rename-file (c|sh)ould still be changed accordingly).
>

I do not understand what you have in mind with write-file. This creates a
copy, which is natural given the name. Do you envision some changes to it?
Or do you mean I should just use write-file and delete the old file? Some
years ago there was a conversation on emacs-devel on this topic and you
yourself proposed something like rename-current-file:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2009-08/msg01132.html

Someone even sent a patch, RMS objected to the name, and then the
conversation stalled and I think nothing was changed. Some of the names I
have thrown around like rename-visited-file-with-buffer attempt to deal
with the ambiguity & asymmetry with respect to existing functions RMS might
possibly had in mind back then. I think in this case the function names
will either be short, intuitive and slightly ambiguous or the names will be
long, unintuitive and precise - due to the distinction between buffer,
visisted file, the fact that you have a current buffer but not really a
current file, the fact that many buffers might visit the same file etc., it
is very easy to come up with a lot of different names and equally easy to
find something slightly wrong with each of them. Maybe it is better to have
a shorter name that is not 100% precise but is intuitive to the users than
have a very precise name that nobody remembers and few people will be able
to discover.

To try to move this forward constructively: I like the idea of
delete-file/rename-file prompting whether to also kill/rename the
associated buffers. However, by itself it does not yet fulfill the use case
I had in mind, of dealing the file visited by the current buffer. I would
be fine with something like delete-current-file/rename-current-file that
just calls delete-file/rename-file on the current buffers file, and then
having delete-file/rename-file prompt for modifying some or all of the
(potentially several) visiting buffers. That's I think a pretty
conservative change that helps accomplish a basic task many people want to
do, quickly, easily and without distractions.

Cheers,
Jarosław Rzeszótko

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5128 bytes --]