Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Jarosław Rzeszótko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3268 bytes --]

It is surprisingly hard to do this in Emacs, and I think it is a common
problem, as evidenced by e.g.:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/384284/how-do-i-rename-an-open-file-in-emacs
http://emacsredux.com/blog/2013/05/04/rename-file-and-buffer/
http://rejeep.github.io/emacs/elisp/2010/03/26/rename-file-and-buffer-in-emacs.html

You can use dired, but I personally find it to be a distraction for this
use case.

There is set-visited-file-name, but:
a) it creates a copy of the file by default
b) the name is not intuitive and I doubt many people looking to rename a
file will find it
c) the best UI/UX is IMO different for different use cases, rename is
different from move

A very similar related pain point is that it is hard to get the path and
directory of the current buffers visited file. There exist ways to do it,
but this is a pair of related use cases and the handling is completely
different: for the path you have default-directory, an elisp variable, and
pwd, a command capable of displaying the path in minibuffer or yanking it
at point. For file name I am only aware of the elisp function:
buffer-file-name. Again, two closely related use cases, handled very
differently, I by now looked those up like 10 times and every time I forget
how to get this info because the names are so far from what you would
expect.

How can we fix or improve those issues?

For rename/delete/move I would create three distinct commands:
rename-visited-file-with-buffer
move-visited-file-with-buffer
delete-visited-file-with-buffer

Those names make the functions easy to discover if you are using something
like ivy or ido for M-x, while they are still precise from the standpoint
of Emacs concepts. It seems good to me to separate rename, which should
prefill the minibuffer prompt with the current name, and ask only for a new
filename, WITHOUT directory selection, from move, which should prompt for a
full new path, WITH directory selection.

For the current buffers file and directory name, I think aliasing
default-directory as visited-file-name-directory, and introducing
visited-file-name is one option. Another option: introduce
buffer-directory-name as a complement to the existing buffer-file-name
function. That would cleanup the elisp part, and then at least the names
are something you can remember, and with M-: you can kill, insert or
display those.

Question remains how to fix those things also on an user interface level. I
think it's a pity clicking on the filename in the modeline changes the
current buffer, I am happy to hear if I am mistaken, but today this
behavior is rather unexpected and I would be very surprised to see somebody
switching buffers this way. On the other hand it looks like a nice place
for a menu where all the operations mentioned could be triggered (rename,
move and delete file+buffer, display/kill/insert directory name or file
name). Providing default key bindings under a common prefix for them could
be nice too.

Maybe someone has some more, or better, ideas for this.

Finally, while we are discussing functions everyone re-implements in their
.emacs, please lets make transpose-windows happen as an Emacs builtin :)

Cheers,
Jarosław Rzeszótko

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6754 bytes --]

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Stefan Monnier]

> different: for the path you have default-directory, an elisp variable, and

[ Side note: After

      C-x C-f /home/foo/bar

  buffer-file-name should be "/home/foo/bar" and default-directory should
  be "/home/foo/".  But note that if you then do:

      M-x cd RET / RET

  you'll see that default-directory is now "/", i.e. default-directory is
  not actually tied to the name of the buffer's file.

  This said, the two are in-sync 99.9% of the time.
]

> How can we fix or improve those issues?
>
> For rename/delete/move I would create three distinct commands:
> rename-visited-file-with-buffer
> move-visited-file-with-buffer

I don't really know what's the intended difference between "rename" and
"move", but I think rather than introduce new commands (whose name users
won't remember), it'd make more sense to "enhance" existing commands.
E.g. I personally rename/move files usually via

    M-x delete-file RET M-n RET
    C-x C-w <newname> RET

so maybe we could instead have `C-x C-w` prompt the user
"delete the old file (y or n)?"

Similarly

    M-x rename-file RET

could try and detect if the source name matches some of the buffers's
filenames and ask whether we want to rename those buffers's filenames
accordingly.

> delete-visited-file-with-buffer

Hmm... Not sure how best to introduce this behavior into existing commands.

I don't remember being conscious of having such a need, but I think I'd
do it with:

    M-x delete-file RET M-n RET
    C-x C-c

[ I have C-x C-c remapped the kill the current-buffer, since
  I prefer to use `M-x kill-emacs RET` for those rare cases where
  I really want to exit the current Emacs session.  ]

So maybe `delete-file` could ask whether we wants to kill the
corresponding buffers (as for `rename-file` above it's "buffer*S*"
since it can affect several buffers in the case where the
deleted/renamed "file" is actually a directory).

> Those names make the functions easy to discover if you are using something
> like ivy or ido for M-x,

[ Same applies if you use `icomplete-mode` or if you use the
  bog-standard default completion ;-)  ]

> while they are still precise from the standpoint
> of Emacs concepts. It seems good to me to separate rename, which should
> prefill the minibuffer prompt with the current name, and ask only for a new
> filename, WITHOUT directory selection, from move, which should prompt for a
> full new path, WITH directory selection.

C-x C-w gives you "/current/dir/" is initial input.  If you then type
"/other/dir/" it will "move" the file without "renaming" it (I
personally don't like to make this distinction, probably because
I consider the file's name to include all the leading directories, which
is also the implicit point of view of the GNU Coding Standard which uses
"file name" rather than "path" and reserves the word "path" for things
like $PATH, $LS_LIBRARY_PATH, load-path, ...).
And M-n inserts the current name, so I think it handles both
use-cases well enough.

[ For those how like the "default" to be pre-inserted in the buffer
  (and highlighted as the current region so that delete-selection-mode
  will automatically delete it) rather than go through M-n, this should
  be a global user-config option.  ]

> For the current buffers file and directory name, I think aliasing
> default-directory as visited-file-name-directory, and introducing
> visited-file-name is one option. Another option: introduce
> buffer-directory-name as a complement to the existing buffer-file-name
> function. That would cleanup the elisp part, and then at least the names
> are something you can remember, and with M-: you can kill, insert or
> display those.

I thought `M-x pwd RET` was a good enough way to get that info.

> Question remains how to fix those things also on an user interface level. I
> think it's a pity clicking on the filename in the modeline changes the
> current buffer, I am happy to hear if I am mistaken, but today this
> behavior is rather unexpected and I would be very surprised to see somebody
> switching buffers this way.

On the contrary I'd be surprised if noone uses this buffer-switching
system, since it's been around for so many years.  I don't claim it's
the best use of that "button-like thingy", but changing it would
inevitably irk some users.

[ FWIW, I don't use that functionality, but then again, I don't use
  dired either.  ]

> On the other hand it looks like a nice place for a menu where all the
> operations mentioned could be triggered

I guess it could make sense, indeed.

> (rename, move and delete file+buffer, display/kill/insert directory
> name or file name). Providing default key bindings under a common
> prefix for them could be nice too.

A common key-prefix for such file operations would be nice, indeed
(this key-prefix could be considered as a kind of "buffer-less
lightweight dired").


        Stefan

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Yuri Khan]

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:59 PM Jarosław Rzeszótko <jrzeszotko@gmail.com>
wrote:

> It is surprisingly hard to do this in Emacs […]
> You can use dired, but I personally find it to be a distraction for this
use case.

Why?

I think of deleting, renaming and moving as operations on the file as a
whole and not on its content, so saving the file and going “outside” it is
the intuitive first step for me. ‘dired-jump’ takes me to the Dired buffer
of the enclosing directory and puts point on the file. It’s on C-x C-j by
default, but I bind it on <M-S-up> so my fingers think going “outside” is a
single spatial movement.

If I want to delete the file, I press D and confirm. To rename, I press R
and enter the new name; the buffer is renamed automatically.

When copying or moving files, I prefer to see the target directory before I
do it. So, I split the window, switch there, navigate to the target
directory, switch back, R (or C to copy), RET (because with
‘dired-dwim-target’ set to non-nil the target directory is automatically
suggested as the default), then deal with any changes to the window
configuration.

Note here the DWIM behavior: R suggests the directory in the other window,
but if there is no other window, then the current directory.

> A very similar related pain point is that it is hard to get the path and
directory of the current buffers visited file.

Your favorite binding of ‘find-file’, followed by your preferred method to
get the current line to clipboard. (This breaks if you ‘cd’ to a different
directory while editing a file.)

> Finally, while we are discussing functions everyone re-implements in
their .emacs, please lets make transpose-windows happen as an Emacs builtin
:)

You mean the windcycle library?

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Andreas Röhler]

On 07.05.2018 15:58, Jarosław Rzeszótko wrote:
> It is surprisingly hard to do this in Emacs, and I think it is a common 
> problem, as evidenced by e.g.:
> 
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/384284/how-do-i-rename-an-open-file-in-emacs
> http://emacsredux.com/blog/2013/05/04/rename-file-and-buffer/
> http://rejeep.github.io/emacs/elisp/2010/03/26/rename-file-and-buffer-in-emacs.html
> 
> You can use dired, but I personally find it to be a distraction for this 
> use case.
> 
> There is set-visited-file-name, but:
> a) it creates a copy of the file by default
> b) the name is not intuitive and I doubt many people looking to rename a 
> file will find it
> c) the best UI/UX is IMO different for different use cases, rename is 
> different from move
> 
> A very similar related pain point is that it is hard to get the path and 
> directory of the current buffers visited file. There exist ways to do 
> it, but this is a pair of related use cases and the handling is 
> completely different: for the path you have default-directory, an elisp 
> variable, and pwd, a command capable of displaying the path in 
> minibuffer or yanking it at point. For file name I am only aware of the 
> elisp function: buffer-file-name. Again, two closely related use cases, 
> handled very differently, I by now looked those up like 10 times and 
> every time I forget how to get this info because the names are so far 
> from what you would expect.
> 
> How can we fix or improve those issues?
> 
> For rename/delete/move I would create three distinct commands:
> rename-visited-file-with-buffer
> move-visited-file-with-buffer
> delete-visited-file-with-buffer
> 
> Those names make the functions easy to discover if you are using 
> something like ivy or ido for M-x, while they are still precise from the 
> standpoint of Emacs concepts. It seems good to me to separate rename, 
> which should prefill the minibuffer prompt with the current name, and 
> ask only for a new filename, WITHOUT directory selection, from move, 
> which should prompt for a full new path, WITH directory selection.
> 
> For the current buffers file and directory name, I think aliasing 
> default-directory as visited-file-name-directory, and introducing 
> visited-file-name is one option. Another option: introduce 
> buffer-directory-name as a complement to the existing buffer-file-name 
> function. That would cleanup the elisp part, and then at least the names 
> are something you can remember, and with M-: you can kill, insert or 
> display those.
> 
> Question remains how to fix those things also on an user interface 
> level. I think it's a pity clicking on the filename in the modeline 
> changes the current buffer, I am happy to hear if I am mistaken, but 
> today this behavior is rather unexpected and I would be very surprised 
> to see somebody switching buffers this way. On the other hand it looks 
> like a nice place for a menu where all the operations mentioned could be 
> triggered (rename, move and delete file+buffer, display/kill/insert 
> directory name or file name). Providing default key bindings under a 
> common prefix for them could be nice too.
> 
> Maybe someone has some more, or better, ideas for this.
> 
> Finally, while we are discussing functions everyone re-implements in 
> their .emacs, please lets make transpose-windows happen as an Emacs 
> builtin :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Jarosław Rzeszótko


Good question.

My workflow is the following:

[(control a)]         ;; Store the buffer-name in kill-ring, code see below
[(control x) (d)]     ;; dired, commonly the wanted working dir
[(control s)(meta y)] ;; yank the buffer-name as argument to
		      ;; isearch-forward
[(control c) (w)]     ;; or M-x wdired-change-to-wdired-mode RET

                       ;; then edit, save.

(defun puffername-an-car-killring ()
   "Store buffer-name at first place in ‘kill-ring’."
   (interactive)
   (let* ((name-raw (split-string (buffer-name) "<"))
	 (name (car name-raw)))
     (kill-new name)
     (message "%s" name)))

Best,
Andreas

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Andreas Röhler]

On 07.05.2018 17:29, Andreas Röhler wrote:
> 
> 
> On 07.05.2018 15:58, Jarosław Rzeszótko wrote:
>> It is surprisingly hard to do this in Emacs, and I think it is a 
>> common problem, as evidenced by e.g.:
>>
>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/384284/how-do-i-rename-an-open-file-in-emacs 
>>
>> http://emacsredux.com/blog/2013/05/04/rename-file-and-buffer/
>> http://rejeep.github.io/emacs/elisp/2010/03/26/rename-file-and-buffer-in-emacs.html 
>>
>>
>> You can use dired, but I personally find it to be a distraction for 
>> this use case.
>>
>> There is set-visited-file-name, but:
>> a) it creates a copy of the file by default
>> b) the name is not intuitive and I doubt many people looking to rename 
>> a file will find it
>> c) the best UI/UX is IMO different for different use cases, rename is 
>> different from move
>>
>> A very similar related pain point is that it is hard to get the path 
>> and directory of the current buffers visited file. There exist ways to 
>> do it, but this is a pair of related use cases and the handling is 
>> completely different: for the path you have default-directory, an 
>> elisp variable, and pwd, a command capable of displaying the path in 
>> minibuffer or yanking it at point. For file name I am only aware of 
>> the elisp function: buffer-file-name. Again, two closely related use 
>> cases, handled very differently, I by now looked those up like 10 
>> times and every time I forget how to get this info because the names 
>> are so far from what you would expect.
>>
>> How can we fix or improve those issues?
>>
>> For rename/delete/move I would create three distinct commands:
>> rename-visited-file-with-buffer
>> move-visited-file-with-buffer
>> delete-visited-file-with-buffer
>>
>> Those names make the functions easy to discover if you are using 
>> something like ivy or ido for M-x, while they are still precise from 
>> the standpoint of Emacs concepts. It seems good to me to separate 
>> rename, which should prefill the minibuffer prompt with the current 
>> name, and ask only for a new filename, WITHOUT directory selection, 
>> from move, which should prompt for a full new path, WITH directory 
>> selection.
>>
>> For the current buffers file and directory name, I think aliasing 
>> default-directory as visited-file-name-directory, and introducing 
>> visited-file-name is one option. Another option: introduce 
>> buffer-directory-name as a complement to the existing buffer-file-name 
>> function. That would cleanup the elisp part, and then at least the 
>> names are something you can remember, and with M-: you can kill, 
>> insert or display those.
>>
>> Question remains how to fix those things also on an user interface 
>> level. I think it's a pity clicking on the filename in the modeline 
>> changes the current buffer, I am happy to hear if I am mistaken, but 
>> today this behavior is rather unexpected and I would be very surprised 
>> to see somebody switching buffers this way. On the other hand it looks 
>> like a nice place for a menu where all the operations mentioned could 
>> be triggered (rename, move and delete file+buffer, display/kill/insert 
>> directory name or file name). Providing default key bindings under a 
>> common prefix for them could be nice too.
>>
>> Maybe someone has some more, or better, ideas for this.
>>
>> Finally, while we are discussing functions everyone re-implements in 
>> their .emacs, please lets make transpose-windows happen as an Emacs 
>> builtin :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jarosław Rzeszótko
> 
> 
> Good question.
> 
> My workflow is the following:
> 
> [(control a)]         ;; Store the buffer-name in kill-ring, code see below
> [(control x) (d)]     ;; dired, commonly the wanted working dir
> [(control s)(meta y)] ;; yank the buffer-name as argument to
>                ;; isearch-forward

After all seeing dired-jump is better here.

So lets forget about that ;)

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Jarosław Rzeszótko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5801 bytes --]

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
wrote:

> > different: for the path you have default-directory, an elisp variable,
> and
>
> [ Side note: After
>
>       C-x C-f /home/foo/bar
>
>   buffer-file-name should be "/home/foo/bar" and default-directory should
>   be "/home/foo/".  But note that if you then do:
>
>       M-x cd RET / RET
>
>   you'll see that default-directory is now "/", i.e. default-directory is
>   not actually tied to the name of the buffer's file.
>
>   This said, the two are in-sync 99.9% of the time.
> ]
>

That's maybe one more reason a function like buffer-directory-name would be
nice? Semantics for all the operations being discussed surely take some
thought and maybe trial & error to get right, as is also clear when looking
at set-visited-file-name and seeing how it is quite complicated.


>
> > How can we fix or improve those issues?
> >
> > For rename/delete/move I would create three distinct commands:
> > rename-visited-file-with-buffer
> > move-visited-file-with-buffer
>
> I don't really know what's the intended difference between "rename" and
> "move", but I think rather than introduce new commands (whose name users
> won't remember), it'd make more sense to "enhance" existing commands.
> E.g. I personally rename/move files usually via
>
>     M-x delete-file RET M-n RET
>     C-x C-w <newname> RET
>
> so maybe we could instead have `C-x C-w` prompt the user
> "delete the old file (y or n)?"
>
> Similarly
>
>     M-x rename-file RET
>
> could try and detect if the source name matches some of the buffers's
> filenames and ask whether we want to rename those buffers's filenames
> accordingly.
>

People might not remember the whole command name, but when they use M-x, or
C-h f with some filtering it will pop up when typing "rename" or "move",
which is what those operations are now called pretty universally in other
programs. It's easily discoverable this way, and you might key bind if you
want, while renaming via delete-file is something that you might figure out
but not necessarily anything close to the first thing you would try. So I
stand by my commands proposal. As mentioned I also hope there are ways to
integrate it into keybindings and UI, maybe also a manual section for such
not-dired file operations would be nice. I think those are basic things
people want to do, and a bit of a gap in the basic set of Emacs
functionalities.

The difference between "rename" and "move" I intended was for rename to
mean changing the filename (without moving to another directory), and for
move to mean moving to another directory, keeping or also changing the
filename. You can present slightly different prompt/completion in the
minibuffer for the two cases, which I thought might make for a nice UX. I
would also be fine with just a "move" command, which lets you do both
things, see below.


>
> > delete-visited-file-with-buffer
>
> Hmm... Not sure how best to introduce this behavior into existing commands.
>
> I don't remember being conscious of having such a need, but I think I'd
> do it with:
>
>     M-x delete-file RET M-n RET
>     C-x C-c
>
> [ I have C-x C-c remapped the kill the current-buffer, since
>   I prefer to use `M-x kill-emacs RET` for those rare cases where
>   I really want to exit the current Emacs session.  ]
>
> So maybe `delete-file` could ask whether we wants to kill the
> corresponding buffers (as for `rename-file` above it's "buffer*S*"
> since it can affect several buffers in the case where the
> deleted/renamed "file" is actually a directory).
>
> > Those names make the functions easy to discover if you are using
> something
> > like ivy or ido for M-x,
>
> [ Same applies if you use `icomplete-mode` or if you use the
>   bog-standard default completion ;-)  ]
>
> > while they are still precise from the standpoint
> > of Emacs concepts. It seems good to me to separate rename, which should
> > prefill the minibuffer prompt with the current name, and ask only for a
> new
> > filename, WITHOUT directory selection, from move, which should prompt
> for a
> > full new path, WITH directory selection.
>
> C-x C-w gives you "/current/dir/" is initial input.  If you then type
> "/other/dir/" it will "move" the file without "renaming" it (I
> personally don't like to make this distinction, probably because
> I consider the file's name to include all the leading directories, which
> is also the implicit point of view of the GNU Coding Standard which uses
> "file name" rather than "path" and reserves the word "path" for things
> like $PATH, $LS_LIBRARY_PATH, load-path, ...).
> And M-n inserts the current name, so I think it handles both
> use-cases well enough.
>

This creates a copy of the file, while I want to rename/move it. This might
include things like deal with version control. A single "move" function is
fine, maybe even the set-visited-file-name semantics are OK, it just has a
bad name, has no key bindings, no menu item, and I would like a
delete-visited-file to complement it. When I look for a command to move a
file in the M-x completion prompt, I will try "move" and "rename" and see
what matches, but I would surely not naturally come up with any substring
of set-visited-file-name when thinking how Emacs might have named a command
to move files, except for "file-name", but this matches a ton of things. I
am sure many people using Emacs don't even know the concept of a visited
file.

Also, note there is rename-file, rename-buffer, but then
set-visited-file-name for what is effectively rename-file-with-visited-buffer.
There is also an interactive delete-file, obviously there is kill-buffer,
but no way to delete file and kill its visiting buffer. I just hope maybe
we can find some way to make this more uniform and complete.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12574 bytes --]

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Jarosław Rzeszótko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4629 bytes --]

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Yuri Khan <yurivkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:59 PM Jarosław Rzeszótko <jrzeszotko@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It is surprisingly hard to do this in Emacs […]
> > You can use dired, but I personally find it to be a distraction for this
> use case.
>
> Why?
>

I personally most often want this when working on a programming project, I
have a bunch of files open and I am in the middle of a planned sequence of
changes, popping up a new buffer and dealing with dired which I do not
otherwise use much breaks my concentration. It is hard to explain this
fully rationally, but judging by how many .emacs, libraries, wiki pages
etc. I have seen that have rename-file-and-buffer in them I am not the only
one.

Note that an interactive delete-file function already exists, but it
doesn't kill the associated buffer. That's why I consider it a gap in the
Emacs set of functions. There are three sets of operations: file operations
(rename-file, delete-file), buffer operations (rename-buffer, kill-buffer)
and some file+buffer operations (set-visited-file-name). It would be nice
if there was some unity among the three sets, so that it would be possible
to do the common operations in all three ways (file/buffer/file+buffer),
and that the naming is reasonably consistent. Of course backwards
compatibility is an issue as always.


> [...]


> > A very similar related pain point is that it is hard to get the path and
> directory of the current buffers visited file.
>
> Your favorite binding of ‘find-file’, followed by your preferred method to
> get the current line to clipboard. (This breaks if you ‘cd’ to a different
> directory while editing a file.)
>

This is not that easy if you use a completion system like ivy or ido. It's
also not nice from an elisp standpoint, that for the two strongly related
things, one is accessible only as a variable and the other either as a
command or function.


>
> > Finally, while we are discussing functions everyone re-implements in
> their .emacs, please lets make transpose-windows happen as an Emacs builtin
> :)
>
> You mean the windcycle library?
>

I mean:

https://github.com/bbatsov/crux/blob/master/crux.el#L471
https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/TransposeWindows

Sure there are packages to do this, it just seems strange among the many
built-in window functions there is no transpose. Again, you will easily
find very many .emacs on the web implementing a function like this, which
for me looks like a bit of gap in what is provided out-of-the-box.

Cheers,
Jarosław Rzeszótko


On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Yuri Khan <yurivkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:59 PM Jarosław Rzeszótko <jrzeszotko@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It is surprisingly hard to do this in Emacs […]
> > You can use dired, but I personally find it to be a distraction for this
> use case.
>
> Why?
>
> I think of deleting, renaming and moving as operations on the file as a
> whole and not on its content, so saving the file and going “outside” it is
> the intuitive first step for me. ‘dired-jump’ takes me to the Dired buffer
> of the enclosing directory and puts point on the file. It’s on C-x C-j by
> default, but I bind it on <M-S-up> so my fingers think going “outside” is a
> single spatial movement.
>
> If I want to delete the file, I press D and confirm. To rename, I press R
> and enter the new name; the buffer is renamed automatically.
>
> When copying or moving files, I prefer to see the target directory before I
> do it. So, I split the window, switch there, navigate to the target
> directory, switch back, R (or C to copy), RET (because with
> ‘dired-dwim-target’ set to non-nil the target directory is automatically
> suggested as the default), then deal with any changes to the window
> configuration.
>
> Note here the DWIM behavior: R suggests the directory in the other window,
> but if there is no other window, then the current directory.
>
> > A very similar related pain point is that it is hard to get the path and
> directory of the current buffers visited file.
>
> Your favorite binding of ‘find-file’, followed by your preferred method to
> get the current line to clipboard. (This breaks if you ‘cd’ to a different
> directory while editing a file.)
>
> > Finally, while we are discussing functions everyone re-implements in
> their .emacs, please lets make transpose-windows happen as an Emacs builtin
> :)
>
> You mean the windcycle library?
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7873 bytes --]

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Similarly
>>
>>     M-x rename-file RET
>>
>> could try and detect if the source name matches some of the buffers's
>> filenames and ask whether we want to rename those buffers's filenames
>> accordingly.
[...]
> People might not remember the whole command name, but when they use M-x, or
> C-h f with some filtering it will pop up when typing "rename" or "move",
[...]
> So I stand by my commands proposal.

I don't understand: it seems like "rename-file" is a name which should
just work with your M-x and C-h f examples, so I don't see how those examples
argues in favor of "my commands proposal" instead of using "rename-file".

>> C-x C-w gives you "/current/dir/" is initial input.  If you then type
>> "/other/dir/" it will "move" the file without "renaming" it (I
>> personally don't like to make this distinction, probably because
>> I consider the file's name to include all the leading directories, which
>> is also the implicit point of view of the GNU Coding Standard which uses
>> "file name" rather than "path" and reserves the word "path" for things
>> like $PATH, $LS_LIBRARY_PATH, load-path, ...).
>> And M-n inserts the current name, so I think it handles both
>> use-cases well enough.
> This creates a copy of the file, while I want to rename/move it.

I only presented this example to illustrate how Emacs merges both "new
name" and "new directory" into a single UI (tho indeed currently
C-x C-w doesn't actually "move/rename" but it copies instead).

> include things like deal with version control. A single "move" function is
> fine, maybe even the set-visited-file-name semantics are OK, it just has a
> bad name, has no key bindings, no menu item,

C-x C-w does have all those feature (other than the name).

> and I would like a delete-visited-file to complement it.

Could you give details as to why you'd want to separate it from
`delete-file`?

> When I look for a command to move a file in the M-x completion prompt,
> I will try "move" and "rename" and see what matches,

Right, and you'll find `rename-file`, which is what I think should do
what you want.

> but I would surely not naturally come up with any substring
> of set-visited-file-name when thinking how Emacs might have named a command
> to move files, except for "file-name", but this matches a ton of things. I
> am sure many people using Emacs don't even know the concept of a visited
> file.

Agreed.  So I find it odd that you insist on having "visited-file" in
the name of the commands ;-)

> Also, note there is rename-file, rename-buffer, but then
> set-visited-file-name for what is effectively
> rename-file-with-visited-buffer.

set-visited-file-name does not rename any file, AFAIK (and I don't see
any suggestion to change this).

> There is also an interactive delete-file, obviously there is kill-buffer,
> but no way to delete file and kill its visiting buffer.

FWIW, I very rarely need to do delete-file and kill-buffer at the same
time, so I'm not convinced there's a need for a separate command for
that.  But as noted, I'd be OK for delete-file to kill the matching
buffer(s) [ either subject to a prompt or a user-config, for those users
who like to `delete-file` while keeping the buffer, as is occasionally
my case.  ]


        Stefan

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Jarosław Rzeszótko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6911 bytes --]

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:01 PM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
wrote:

> >> Similarly
> >>
> >>     M-x rename-file RET
> >>
> >> could try and detect if the source name matches some of the buffers's
> >> filenames and ask whether we want to rename those buffers's filenames
> >> accordingly.
> [...]
> > People might not remember the whole command name, but when they use M-x,
> or
> > C-h f with some filtering it will pop up when typing "rename" or "move",
> [...]
> > So I stand by my commands proposal.
>
> I don't understand: it seems like "rename-file" is a name which should
> just work with your M-x and C-h f examples, so I don't see how those
> examples
> argues in favor of "my commands proposal" instead of using "rename-file".
>

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.
- 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.

Emacs distinguishing so strongly between buffer and visited file is why
people commonly implement something they typically name
rename-file-and-buffer, for example:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/384284/how-do-i-rename-an-open-file-in-emacs
http://emacsredux.com/blog/2013/05/04/rename-file-and-buffer/
http://rejeep.github.io/emacs/elisp/2010/03/26/rename-file-and-buffer-in-emacs.html

But rename-file-and-buffer acting on the current buffers file is
inconsistent with rename-file first prompting for a file to rename, hence
the logical way would be to have a new set of functions with some shared
suffix.


>
> >> C-x C-w gives you "/current/dir/" is initial input.  If you then type
> >> "/other/dir/" it will "move" the file without "renaming" it (I
> >> personally don't like to make this distinction, probably because
> >> I consider the file's name to include all the leading directories, which
> >> is also the implicit point of view of the GNU Coding Standard which uses
> >> "file name" rather than "path" and reserves the word "path" for things
> >> like $PATH, $LS_LIBRARY_PATH, load-path, ...).
> >> And M-n inserts the current name, so I think it handles both
> >> use-cases well enough.
> > This creates a copy of the file, while I want to rename/move it.
>
> I only presented this example to illustrate how Emacs merges both "new
> name" and "new directory" into a single UI (tho indeed currently
> C-x C-w doesn't actually "move/rename" but it copies instead).
>

OK, I am completely fine with a single combined move/rename, no
disagreement here.


>
> > include things like deal with version control. A single "move" function
> is
> > fine, maybe even the set-visited-file-name semantics are OK, it just has
> a
> > bad name, has no key bindings, no menu item,
>
> C-x C-w does have all those feature (other than the name).
>
> > and I would like a delete-visited-file to complement it.
>
> Could you give details as to why you'd want to separate it from
> `delete-file`?
>

Like rename-file, delete-file will prompt for a file to delete, and it will
do nothing to a buffer visiting the file, rather than getting rid of the
*current* buffer and the file it visits. I often decide to delete the file
after I have opened it and viewed it, it seems too much to retype the
filename to delete it.

> When I look for a command to move a file in the M-x completion prompt,
> > I will try "move" and "rename" and see what matches,
>
> Right, and you'll find `rename-file`, which is what I think should do
> what you want.
>
> > but I would surely not naturally come up with any substring
> > of set-visited-file-name when thinking how Emacs might have named a
> command
> > to move files, except for "file-name", but this matches a ton of things.
> I
> > am sure many people using Emacs don't even know the concept of a visited
> > file.
>
> Agreed.  So I find it odd that you insist on having "visited-file" in
> the name of the commands ;-)
>

That's because there are existing functions that end with -file that act on
files but disregard any existing buffers associated with the file. In
addition to those existing file functions, and to functions that act on
buffers, I was thinking of having a third parallel set of functions that
acts on the current buffer and its associated file, and I would like the
naming to somehow be consistent between the three groups, that's why I came
up with the -buffer-and-visited-file suffix. If that doesn't ring right,
maybe it should be something like -current-buffer-and-file instead. Maybe
it should actually be four groups:

*-file functions
*-buffer
*-buffer-with-file
*-current-buffer-with-file

Since it's just move/rename and delete/kill, it's just 8 functions, 4 of
which already exist. You might not want to do this everyday, but it's also
not an exotic use case, again as evidenced by how many times I have seen it
discussed on the web and in people's .emacs files. rename-buffer-with-file
and delete-buffer-with-file might be useful for programmatic usage via
emacs-lisp as well.


>
> > Also, note there is rename-file, rename-buffer, but then
> > set-visited-file-name for what is effectively
> > rename-file-with-visited-buffer.
>
> set-visited-file-name does not rename any file, AFAIK (and I don't see
> any suggestion to change this).
>

If you set the along-with-file argument to t, or use prefix argument, I
think it executes a rename like the one I would like to be able to do, so
file+buffer.


>
> > There is also an interactive delete-file, obviously there is kill-buffer,
> > but no way to delete file and kill its visiting buffer.
>
> FWIW, I very rarely need to do delete-file and kill-buffer at the same
> time, so I'm not convinced there's a need for a separate command for
> that.  But as noted, I'd be OK for delete-file to kill the matching
> buffer(s) [ either subject to a prompt or a user-config, for those users
> who like to `delete-file` while keeping the buffer, as is occasionally
> my case.  ]


delete-file and rename-file prompting whether to do the corresponding
action also on the buffer makes sense in general, better yet if it would be
possible to configure Emacs to do this always, by default, when using the
functions interactively. Is something like that safe with regards to
backward compatibility?

Those act on a file you have to select though, I would like something that
specifically acts on the current buffer and its visited file.

Cheers,
Jarosław Rzeszótko

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10215 bytes --]

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Andreas Schwab]

On Mai 07 2018, Jarosław Rzeszótko <jrzeszotko@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's maybe one more reason a function like buffer-directory-name would be
> nice?

How is that different from (file-name-directory (buffer-file-name))?

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510  2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Stefan Monnier]

> 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).

>> > Also, note there is rename-file, rename-buffer, but then
>> > set-visited-file-name for what is effectively
>> > rename-file-with-visited-buffer.
>> set-visited-file-name does not rename any file, AFAIK (and I don't see
>> any suggestion to change this).
> If you set the along-with-file argument to t, or use prefix argument, I
> think it executes a rename like the one I would like to be able to do, so
> file+buffer.

Nope, it ignores prefix args and the `along-with-file` argument only
tells it that *something else* has moved the file.

> delete-file and rename-file prompting whether to do the corresponding
> action also on the buffer makes sense in general, better yet if it would be
> possible to configure Emacs to do this always, by default, when using the
> functions interactively. Is something like that safe with regards to
> backward compatibility?

If it's only done when used interactively, it should be safe, yes.

> Those act on a file you have to select though, I would like something that
> specifically acts on the current buffer and its visited file.

Hence C-x C-w (aka `write-file`).


        Stefan

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Stefan Monnier]

>> That's maybe one more reason a function like buffer-directory-name would be
>> nice?
> How is that different from (file-name-directory (buffer-file-name))?

I think he meant "command" when he wrote "function".


        Stefan

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Jarosław Rzeszótko]

[-- 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 --]

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Tino Calancha]

Yuri Khan <yurivkhan@gmail.com> writes:

> I think of deleting, renaming and moving as operations on the file as a
> whole and not on its content, so saving the file and going “outside” it is
> the intuitive first step for me. ‘dired-jump’ takes me to the Dired buffer
> of the enclosing directory and puts point on the file. 
> If I want to delete the file, I press D and confirm. To rename, I press R
> and enter the new name; the buffer is renamed automatically.
+1

Jarosław Rzeszótko <jrzeszotko@gmail.com> writes:

>popping up a new buffer and dealing with dired which I do not otherwise
>use much breaks my concentration.
Learning the _basics_ of Dired is quite straigh and it's really worth it!
If you feel cumbersome having several buffers I suggest you to try
`list-buffers' or `ibuffer'.

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Stefan Monnier]

> 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?

Not sure what happened, but my first answer said:

    so maybe we could instead have `C-x C-w` prompt the user
    "delete the old file (y or n)?"


-- Stefan

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Radon Rosborough]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 435 bytes --]

> > 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?
>
> Not sure what happened, but my first answer said:
>
>     so maybe we could instead have `C-x C-w` prompt the user
>     "delete the old file (y or n)?"

It seems like you are proposing a way to copy a file and then delete
the original. This is not the same as *moving* it.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 622 bytes --]

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Stefan Monnier]

> It seems like you are proposing a way to copy a file and then delete
> the original.  This is not the same as *moving* it.

Emacs's handling of files tends to be fairly vague about how it handles
file identity, so I think the fine distinction between "cp+rm" and "mv"
in this case can be ignored.


        Stefan

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Van L]

> On 9 May 2018, at 22:28, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> Not sure what happened, but my first answer said:
> 
>    so maybe we could instead have `C-x C-w` prompt the user
>    "delete the old file (y or n)?"
> 

Is there a channel for demand driven development? like:

  https://digitalocean.uservoice.com

I believe in the longer term it is better for the Emacs devotee to learn enough of Dired to `type R’ for renaming a file or use the shell command in that context `! mv ? delete-me’.

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[net june]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4895 bytes --]

I have a command my-rename-file for my own use for long time. It does thing as following:
1. When run with no prefix arg, rename the the visiting file in its directory, prompting for new name(read-string) with the old name as init input.
2. in 1, if user input an empty string, delete the file on disk.
3. when run with prefix arg, rename the visiting file to anywhere user choose, prompting for new file path(read-file-name)

?? Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>

________________________________
From: Emacs-devel <emacs-devel-bounces+netjune=outlook.com@gnu.org> on behalf of Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de>
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 11:29:50 PM
To: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file



On 07.05.2018 15:58, Jarosław Rzeszótko wrote:
> It is surprisingly hard to do this in Emacs, and I think it is a common
> problem, as evidenced by e.g.:
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/384284/how-do-i-rename-an-open-file-in-emacs
> http://emacsredux.com/blog/2013/05/04/rename-file-and-buffer/
> http://rejeep.github.io/emacs/elisp/2010/03/26/rename-file-and-buffer-in-emacs.html
>
> You can use dired, but I personally find it to be a distraction for this
> use case.
>
> There is set-visited-file-name, but:
> a) it creates a copy of the file by default
> b) the name is not intuitive and I doubt many people looking to rename a
> file will find it
> c) the best UI/UX is IMO different for different use cases, rename is
> different from move
>
> A very similar related pain point is that it is hard to get the path and
> directory of the current buffers visited file. There exist ways to do
> it, but this is a pair of related use cases and the handling is
> completely different: for the path you have default-directory, an elisp
> variable, and pwd, a command capable of displaying the path in
> minibuffer or yanking it at point. For file name I am only aware of the
> elisp function: buffer-file-name. Again, two closely related use cases,
> handled very differently, I by now looked those up like 10 times and
> every time I forget how to get this info because the names are so far
> from what you would expect.
>
> How can we fix or improve those issues?
>
> For rename/delete/move I would create three distinct commands:
> rename-visited-file-with-buffer
> move-visited-file-with-buffer
> delete-visited-file-with-buffer
>
> Those names make the functions easy to discover if you are using
> something like ivy or ido for M-x, while they are still precise from the
> standpoint of Emacs concepts. It seems good to me to separate rename,
> which should prefill the minibuffer prompt with the current name, and
> ask only for a new filename, WITHOUT directory selection, from move,
> which should prompt for a full new path, WITH directory selection.
>
> For the current buffers file and directory name, I think aliasing
> default-directory as visited-file-name-directory, and introducing
> visited-file-name is one option. Another option: introduce
> buffer-directory-name as a complement to the existing buffer-file-name
> function. That would cleanup the elisp part, and then at least the names
> are something you can remember, and with M-: you can kill, insert or
> display those.
>
> Question remains how to fix those things also on an user interface
> level. I think it's a pity clicking on the filename in the modeline
> changes the current buffer, I am happy to hear if I am mistaken, but
> today this behavior is rather unexpected and I would be very surprised
> to see somebody switching buffers this way. On the other hand it looks
> like a nice place for a menu where all the operations mentioned could be
> triggered (rename, move and delete file+buffer, display/kill/insert
> directory name or file name). Providing default key bindings under a
> common prefix for them could be nice too.
>
> Maybe someone has some more, or better, ideas for this.
>
> Finally, while we are discussing functions everyone re-implements in
> their .emacs, please lets make transpose-windows happen as an Emacs
> builtin :)
>
> Cheers,
> Jarosław Rzeszótko


Good question.

My workflow is the following:

[(control a)]         ;; Store the buffer-name in kill-ring, code see below
[(control x) (d)]     ;; dired, commonly the wanted working dir
[(control s)(meta y)] ;; yank the buffer-name as argument to
                      ;; isearch-forward
[(control c) (w)]     ;; or M-x wdired-change-to-wdired-mode RET

                       ;; then edit, save.

(defun puffername-an-car-killring ()
   "Store buffer-name at first place in ‘kill-ring’."
   (interactive)
   (let* ((name-raw (split-string (buffer-name) "<"))
         (name (car name-raw)))
     (kill-new name)
     (message "%s" name)))

Best,
Andreas


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7715 bytes --]

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Jarosław Rzeszótko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2046 bytes --]

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:50 AM, Van L <van@scratch.space> wrote:

>
> > On 9 May 2018, at 22:28, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> > Not sure what happened, but my first answer said:
> >
> >    so maybe we could instead have `C-x C-w` prompt the user
> >    "delete the old file (y or n)?"
> >
>
> Is there a channel for demand driven development? like:
>
>   https://digitalocean.uservoice.com
>
> I believe in the longer term it is better for the Emacs devotee to learn
> enough of Dired to `type R’ for renaming a file or use the shell command in
> that context `! mv ? delete-me’.
>

This might be a personal thing, but Dired for a quick rename is a bit like
killing a fly with a cannon. I find anything involving additional buffers
distracting when I am focused on changing a set of files - I am typically
refactoring a program, which already involves keeping some items in working
memory.

It always seemed to me rename-this-file-and-buffer (or however it might be
called) is one of .emacs perennial "greatest hits". It also seems like a
natural extension of existing set of functions involving buffers and files.
Given this, I find the response here so far rather surprising. Personally I
hoped Emacs could incorporate more of the most common customizations (the
ones that do not involve breaking any compatibility or preexisting
behavior) into core, the amount of additional packages you have to install
in Emacs to make it competitive with a modern editor is huge, and involves
changing nearly everything, e.g. how page scrolling behaves, how copy/paste
behaves, ... If you look at something like prelude, some of it is very
opinionated, but some of it just plugs what are IMO obvious gaps in Emacs,
like this one, that could be patched without breaking anything.

Cheers,
Jarosław Rzeszótkot

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2751 bytes --]

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Amit Ramon]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> [2018-05-09 08:28 -0400]:

>> 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?
>
>Not sure what happened, but my first answer said:
>
>    so maybe we could instead have `C-x C-w` prompt the user
>    "delete the old file (y or n)?"

For me the use case for using C-x C-w is not to move a file, but to
create a copy of a file leaving the original file untouched -- for
example if I want to create a new file but I want to start from an
existing one as a template.

So for this use case C-x C-w works exactly as I would expect, and
adding the option to delete the original file is unnecessary, and
prompting the user would just interrupt.

As for renaming/moving/deleting a file I feel very comfortable with
doing it with Dired. C-x C-j, R <new name> RET, q -- for me it is
convenient and not too long.

Also, there is the point of "having too many commands" -- this would
make Emacs more complex to use, and personally I prefer a simpler
interface, even at the cost of not having a specific command for every
edge case.

--- Amit

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Phil Sainty]

Count me as one of those who find a "rename buffer and file" command
useful.  I've had one of those bound to "C-c r" for a very long time,
and I consider it convenient to be able to do this directly from the
buffer in question, rather than going to dired.


On 2018-05-10 20:20, Amit Ramon wrote:
> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> [2018-05-09 08:28 -0400]:
>>    so maybe we could instead have `C-x C-w` prompt the user
>>    "delete the old file (y or n)?"
> 
> adding the option to delete the original file is unnecessary, and
> prompting the user would just interrupt.

I'd certainly find it annoying if C-x C-w added an extra prompt.


-Phil

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Van L]

> Jarosław Rzeszótko writes:
> 
> This might be a personal thing, but Dired for a quick rename is a bit like killing a fly with a cannon. I find anything involving additional buffers distracting when I am focused on changing a set of files - I am typically refactoring a program, which already involves keeping some items in working memory.

The way a mechanism like `uservoice’ for demand driven development might work in this case is for the programmer to make the suggestion and post their idea as solved already in elisp snippet for voting on the next step.

I bet the cannon’s shot won’t ever come in contact with a fly in a mythbuster test. :-)

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 11:20:05 +0300
> From: Amit Ramon <amit.ramon@riseup.net>
> 
> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> [2018-05-09 08:28 -0400]:
> 
> >> 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?
> >
> >Not sure what happened, but my first answer said:
> >
> >    so maybe we could instead have `C-x C-w` prompt the user
> >    "delete the old file (y or n)?"
> 
> For me the use case for using C-x C-w is not to move a file, but to
> create a copy of a file leaving the original file untouched -- for
> example if I want to create a new file but I want to start from an
> existing one as a template.

Let me remind people that "C-x C-w" is the Emacs implementation of the
"Save As" paradigm, so it must stay as it is today.  It would be
possible to make it do something slightly different given an argument,
but it already accepts an argument and interprets it in a different
way.  Maybe we could do the renaming with some special value of the
argument, though.

But the default behavior should definitely stay, IMO.

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Radon Rosborough]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 623 bytes --]

> Emacs's handling of files tends to be fairly vague about how it handles
> file identity, so I think the fine distinction between "cp+rm" and "mv"
> in this case can be ignored.

I would have to disagree here. At the very least, as a *user*, when I
look for a command to rename a file, if I find a command that copies
and deletes the original, then I'm going to keep looking. Also,
renaming a file is atomic on many filesystems, whereas copy+delete is
certainly not going to be. Why would we want the "official" way to
rename a file be needlessly prone to race conditions, even if the
problem doesn't come up in practice?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 826 bytes --]

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Stefan Monnier]

> I would have to disagree here. At the very least, as a *user*, when I
> look for a command to rename a file, if I find a command that copies
> and deletes the original, then I'm going to keep looking.

We have `rename-file` for those who want that.  I was just discussing
a proposition to provide a UI that lets one move "the current buffer's
file" without having to introduce a new command (which comes with
problems linked with finding a key-binding and/or a name for it that is
easy enough to discover).

> Also, renaming a file is atomic on many filesystems,

It's not atomic on any POSIX system, AFAIK: it first creates a second
name with `link` and then deletes the old name with `unlink`.

The difference here is one of *identity*, because write-file+delete-file
will not preserve the inode (and also potentially differences w.r.t
handling of symlinks).

> Why would we want the "official" way to rename a file be needlessly
> prone to race conditions, even if the problem doesn't come up
> in practice?

It wouldn't be the official way to rename a file.
Just a convenient way to rename the current buffer's file.


        Stefan "in any case it seems not to be popular, so I'll stop
                explaining it, since it seems to be confused with
                defending/promoting it"

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Andreas Röhler]

Sound cool and should save a keystroke WRT dired-jump and friends.
May you post the code?



On 10.05.2018 02:46, net june wrote:
> I have a command my-rename-file for my own use for long time. It does 
> thing as following:
> 1. When run with no prefix arg, rename the the visiting file in its 
> directory, prompting for new name（read-string） with the old name as 
> init input.
> 2. in 1, if user input an empty string, delete the file on disk.
> 3. when run with prefix arg, rename the visiting file to anywhere user 
> choose, prompting for new file path（read-file-name）
> 
> 获取 Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/ghei36>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Emacs-devel <emacs-devel-bounces+netjune=outlook.com@gnu.org> on 
> behalf of Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 7, 2018 11:29:50 PM
> *To:* emacs-devel@gnu.org
> *Subject:* Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file
> 
> 
> On 07.05.2018 15:58, Jarosław Rzeszótko wrote:
>> It is surprisingly hard to do this in Emacs, and I think it is a common 
>> problem, as evidenced by e.g.:
>> 
>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/384284/how-do-i-rename-an-open-file-in-emacs
>> http://emacsredux.com/blog/2013/05/04/rename-file-and-buffer/
>> http://rejeep.github.io/emacs/elisp/2010/03/26/rename-file-and-buffer-in-emacs.html
>> 
>> You can use dired, but I personally find it to be a distraction for this 
>> use case.
>> 
>> There is set-visited-file-name, but:
>> a) it creates a copy of the file by default
>> b) the name is not intuitive and I doubt many people looking to rename a 
>> file will find it
>> c) the best UI/UX is IMO different for different use cases, rename is 
>> different from move
>> 
>> A very similar related pain point is that it is hard to get the path and 
>> directory of the current buffers visited file. There exist ways to do 
>> it, but this is a pair of related use cases and the handling is 
>> completely different: for the path you have default-directory, an elisp 
>> variable, and pwd, a command capable of displaying the path in 
>> minibuffer or yanking it at point. For file name I am only aware of the 
>> elisp function: buffer-file-name. Again, two closely related use cases, 
>> handled very differently, I by now looked those up like 10 times and 
>> every time I forget how to get this info because the names are so far 
>> from what you would expect.
>> 
>> How can we fix or improve those issues?
>> 
>> For rename/delete/move I would create three distinct commands:
>> rename-visited-file-with-buffer
>> move-visited-file-with-buffer
>> delete-visited-file-with-buffer
>> 
>> Those names make the functions easy to discover if you are using 
>> something like ivy or ido for M-x, while they are still precise from the 
>> standpoint of Emacs concepts. It seems good to me to separate rename, 
>> which should prefill the minibuffer prompt with the current name, and 
>> ask only for a new filename, WITHOUT directory selection, from move, 
>> which should prompt for a full new path, WITH directory selection.
>> 
>> For the current buffers file and directory name, I think aliasing 
>> default-directory as visited-file-name-directory, and introducing 
>> visited-file-name is one option. Another option: introduce 
>> buffer-directory-name as a complement to the existing buffer-file-name 
>> function. That would cleanup the elisp part, and then at least the names 
>> are something you can remember, and with M-: you can kill, insert or 
>> display those.
>> 
>> Question remains how to fix those things also on an user interface 
>> level. I think it's a pity clicking on the filename in the modeline 
>> changes the current buffer, I am happy to hear if I am mistaken, but 
>> today this behavior is rather unexpected and I would be very surprised 
>> to see somebody switching buffers this way. On the other hand it looks 
>> like a nice place for a menu where all the operations mentioned could be 
>> triggered (rename, move and delete file+buffer, display/kill/insert 
>> directory name or file name). Providing default key bindings under a 
>> common prefix for them could be nice too.
>> 
>> Maybe someone has some more, or better, ideas for this.
>> 
>> Finally, while we are discussing functions everyone re-implements in 
>> their .emacs, please lets make transpose-windows happen as an Emacs 
>> builtin :)
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Jarosław Rzeszótko
> 
> 
> Good question.
> 
> My workflow is the following:
> 
> [(control a)]         ;; Store the buffer-name in kill-ring, code see below
> [(control x) (d)]     ;; dired, commonly the wanted working dir
> [(control s)(meta y)] ;; yank the buffer-name as argument to
>                        ;; isearch-forward
> [(control c) (w)]     ;; or M-x wdired-change-to-wdired-mode RET
> 
>                         ;; then edit, save.
> 
> (defun puffername-an-car-killring ()
>     "Store buffer-name at first place in ‘kill-ring’."
>     (interactive)
>     (let* ((name-raw (split-string (buffer-name) "<"))
>           (name (car name-raw)))
>       (kill-new name)
>       (message "%s" name)))
> 
> Best,
> Andreas
> 

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Andreas Schwab]

On Mai 10 2018, Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> wrote:

> It's not atomic on any POSIX system, AFAIK: it first creates a second
> name with `link` and then deletes the old name with `unlink`.

That method has been obsolete for decades.  POSIX requires rename to be
atomic.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510  2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Stefan Monnier]

>> It's not atomic on any POSIX system, AFAIK: it first creates a second
>> name with `link` and then deletes the old name with `unlink`.
> That method has been obsolete for decades.  POSIX requires rename to be
> atomic.

Even when moving from one directory to another?


        Stefan

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Paul Eggert]

On 05/11/2018 08:33 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> That method has been obsolete for decades.  POSIX requires rename to be
>> atomic.
> Even when moving from one directory to another?

Yes, that requirement has been in POSIX ever since POSIX was introduced; 
I just now checked my printed copy of IEEE Std 1003.1-1988.

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Clément Pit-Claudel]

On 2018-05-11 11:45, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 05/11/2018 08:33 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> That method has been obsolete for decades.  POSIX requires rename
>>> to be atomic.
>> Even when moving from one directory to another?
> 
> Yes, that requirement has been in POSIX ever since POSIX was
> introduced; I just now checked my printed copy of IEEE Std
> 1003.1-1988.
I don't know much about this, so sorry if the following is silly. Hopefully someone can clarify.  The glibc implementation of rename in glibc/sysdeps/posix/rename.c is this:

    /* Rename the file OLD to NEW.  */
    int
    rename (const char *old, const char *new)
    {
      int save = errno;
      if (__link (old, new) < 0)
        {
          if (errno == EEXIST)
        {
          __set_errno (save);
          /* Race condition, required for 1003.1 conformance.  */
          if (__unlink (new) < 0 ||
              __link (old, new) < 0)
            return -1;
        }
          else
        return -1;
        }
      if (__unlink (old) < 0)
        {
          save = errno;
          if (__unlink (new) == 0)
        __set_errno (save);
          return -1;
        }
      return 0;
    }

Is this just a fallback implementation (the "obsolete for decades" method that Andreas referred to?), unused on most platforms?

Thanks!
Clément.

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[net june]

On 05/11/2018 02:26 PM, Andreas Röhler wrote:
> Sound cool and should save a keystroke WRT dired-jump and friends.
> May you post the code?
> 

Yes. The following is it.

(defun my-rename-file (arg)
   "Rename or delete the file visited by current buffer."
   (interactive "P")
   (unless buffer-file-name
	(user-error "Not a file buffer"))
   (let ((old-name (file-name-nondirectory buffer-file-name))
		new-file-name)
	(if arg
		(let ((tmp-file-name (read-file-name "Rename to: ")))
		  (setq new-file-name
				(if (file-directory-p tmp-file-name)
					(concat (file-name-as-directory tmp-file-name) old-name)
				  tmp-file-name)))
	  (let* ((new-name (read-string "New file name: " old-name)))
		(when (string= new-name old-name)
		  (user-error "Same as the old name. Not renamed."))
		(if (string= new-name "")
			(when (yes-or-no-p
				   (format "Delete file \"%s\"?" buffer-file-name))
			  ;; On fail, it will signal an error and abort.
			  (delete-file buffer-file-name)
			  (set-buffer-modified-p nil)
			  (kill-buffer)
			  (message "File deleted"))
		  (setq new-file-name (expand-file-name new-name)))))
	(when new-file-name
	  (let ((modify-flag (buffer-modified-p))
			(old-file-name buffer-file-name))
		;; On fail, it will signal an error and abort.
		(rename-file buffer-file-name new-file-name 1)
		(set-visited-file-name new-file-name)
		(rename-buffer (file-name-nondirectory new-file-name) t)
		(set-buffer-modified-p modify-flag)
		(message "Renamed: %s ==> %s" old-file-name new-file-name)))))

Re: Rename, delete and move current buffer and file

[Stefan Monnier]

>>> That method has been obsolete for decades.  POSIX requires rename to be
>>> atomic.
>> Even when moving from one directory to another?
> Yes, that requirement has been in POSIX ever since POSIX was introduced;
> I just now checked my printed copy of IEEE Std 1003.1-1988.

Cool! I had no idea.
Thank,


        Stefan