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: quit-window Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:55:47 -0400 Message-ID: References: <86mxcsvjsk.fsf@googlemail.com> <867h3vhht5.fsf@googlemail.com> <867h3tdft7.fsf@googlemail.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1319568959 20260 80.91.229.12 (25 Oct 2011 18:55:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:55:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Christoph Scholtes Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 25 20:55:55 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1RImAE-0004i4-6o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:55:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60493 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RImAD-0005hA-Qu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:55:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:42255) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RImAB-0005h0-4X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:55:52 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RImA9-0005QO-G2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:55:51 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:42847) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RImA9-0005QK-DC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:55:49 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RImA7-0006Md-Pg; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:55:47 -0400 In-reply-to: <867h3tdft7.fsf@googlemail.com> (message from Christoph Scholtes on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:24:04 -0600) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.10 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:145525 Archived-At: > As far as buffers are concerned, it is no different from any other > change in selection. That's not supposed to change anything about > any buffer. Except for the buffer associated with the temporary window, right? If the content of the window is of temprary nature (in most cases) I would want to kill the associated buffer when the window is quit. Yes, it sometimes does kill the buffer. But that should work like killing the same buffer through any other command. > Thus, if a mode tries to do something nontrivial to the buffer on the > occasion of quitting, that makes me worry. Should that be done at > all? That would have to be decided on a case by case basis, I think. We need to start by deciding them case by case. But if we see enough cases, we might be able to adduce some general rules about how to handle them. > I looked at Info-exit and it seems ok, because it is only doing > something special in the case of stand-alone Info. It wraps `quit-window' in a way that I cannot use `C-u q' to quit the window and *kill* the buffer, though. You're right that it has a bug. My point is that the basic idea of using a special `Info-exit' command is reasonable. There is no reason why `quit-window' should try to handle any special needs of stand-alone Info in Emacs. However, if stand-alone Info in Emacs is obsolete, we can just delete `Info-exit' and use `quit-window' directly. but did not bind it to quit-window, but some other function, e.g. ibuffer-quit. Here I am wondering if the same couldn't be achieved by a call to (the new and improved) `quit-window'. It could be so. Anyway, what we see here is special manipulation of the window configuration. That's the sort of thing that makes sense for `quit-window' to do. So if it doesn't already do everything that's most useful for ibuffer, maybe we should extend `quit-window' to do whatever it is. I will create a list of the occurrences I found and look at if (and what) functionality would get lost if the function used `quit-window'. This is obviously only for cases where the additional functionality deals with window management. That seems like a very useful thing to do. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/