From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Scratch buffer annoyance Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:19:58 -0400 Message-ID: References: <85ejinrqgk.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <35917.128.165.123.18.1185998078.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> <85vebzq7vd.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87odhqethv.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87zm18v7ug.fsf@jurta.org> <85abt7kck1.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87hcndc3zc.fsf@jurta.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1186409923 9181 80.91.229.12 (6 Aug 2007 14:18:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:18:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juri Linkov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 06 16:18:41 2007 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 4.50) id 1II3Pr-0002l9-4l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:18:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1II3Pp-0004ry-5G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:18:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1II3Ob-0004Oq-NU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:17:21 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1II3OW-0004N2-Qu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:17:21 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1II3OW-0004Mw-My for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:17:16 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1II3OV-0003sC-2O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:17:15 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1II3R8-0000oD-2b; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:19:58 -0400 In-reply-to: <87hcndc3zc.fsf@jurta.org> (message from Juri Linkov on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:59:03 +0300) X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:76084 Archived-At: > As I understand it, part of the idea of this change is that > there won't BE a *scratch* buffer if you don't request it > in `initial-buffer-contents'. It is very useful to create a *scratch* buffer at startup, even if it is not displayed immediately. Why do you find it particularly useful? I want to try to gauge how many users would find it desirable. Would they be so many that it would be unacceptable to recommend they use this recipe to set it up? (with-current-buffer (get-buffer-create "*scratch*") (lisp-interaction-mode)) The only problem remains I think that the name `initial-buffer-contents' is worse than simply `initial-buffer'. Sorry, I disagree. It gives a false impression that that some contents gets insterted into some fixed initial buffer. It doesn't seem like a big flaw to me, but I agree it is a small flaw. Perhaps, a better name is `initial-display'? That seems a little less clear than `initial-buffer-contents'. However, perhaps `initial-buffer-setup' is better.