bug#41879: 28.0.50; [Patch]: Add project-switch-to-buffer in project.el

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

On 22.06.2020 12:30, Andrii Kolomoiets wrote:

>>> But to keep consistency with switch-to-buffer,
>>> project-switch-to-buffer
>>> should behave the same.
>>
>> There are other differences, too. The arglist, for example.
> 
> Well, NORECORD and FORCE-SAME-WINDOW can be passed to switch-to-buffer
> easily if there is the need to.

Everything can be added later. Adding new function arguments could be a 
bit more problematic than a slight change in semantics like 
REQUIRE-MATCH=nil, though.

>>> buffers when existing buffer is required.  Because switch-to-buffer is
>>> able to create buffers, I can't see the reason why
>>> project-switch-to-buffer should require the match.
>>
>> To better protect from typos? It's not a very strong argument, of
>> course. But "just for consistency" isn't one either.
> 
> How about "To be able to create buffers"? ;)  This way there are no need
> to use switch-to-buffer for those who will use project-switch-to-buffer
> solely.
> Imagine project-switch-to-buffer is in your muscle memory. You need to
> perform additional steps to create the buffer (C-g C-x b
> type-buffer-name-again) just because the project-switch-to-buffer can't
> create buffers with no reason.

All right. I'll change it to nil now.

Not sure I understand the passion behind your argument, though, since 
you said you're not going to need this yourself. But perhaps I 
misunderstood.