[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Using several frames on TTYs, switching them, terminology: [Is also:

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Using several frames on TTYs, switching them, terminology: [Is also: Tabbed buffers]
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:15:14 +0200

> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:33:15 +0000
> Cc: address@hidden
> From: Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>
> > A solution has been in existence for that problem for a very long time:
> > give your frame a name with "M-x set-frame-name RET FOO RET", then
> > select it with "M-x select-frame-by-name RET FOO RET".  Puff!  problem
> > gone.
> Hmm.  I'm not imaginative enough with names.  ;-)  Having to keep coming
> up with names for new frames (probably, by putting the question in
> after-make-frame-functions) would be intolerably annoying.
> The names F1, F2, .... are good enough for me

You don't _have_ to invent names if you have no trouble remembering
which one of them holds what.  select-frame-by-name is happy with the
Fn names as well.

I usually name the frames by what I'm doing there: "Mail" for reading
mail, "Foo" for some project Foo I'm working on, etc.  But that's me.

> Obviously, select-frame-by-name would need a binding if you were using it
> all the time.

Me, I don't need any binding: command history is good enough in that I
never have to type the command's name more than once.  But if you need
a binding, by all means do it.

> select-frame-by-number would be quite handy too

It would only save you one keystroke (2 vs F2 with selection by name),
and would be unreliable, since a frame can be given any name, not just

> but even that would be too slow for me, even assuming a numeric
> prefix argument and a single-key binding.

Look, this subthread started with your complaint about the need to
step through all the frames with "C-x 5 o" repeated ad nauseam.
Surely, what I suggested is faster than that!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]