Re: Ibuffer: w and B default to buffer at current line

[Tino Calancha]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Tino Calancha wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016, Tino Calancha wrote:
>
> > I have prepared to patches `D' and `W': the former follows DWIM, the later
> > follows your suggestion.
> >
> > `D':
> > * 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
> >
> > `W':
> > * 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> >
> > I don't have any preference for one or the other.  Both provide the same
> > behaviour, so i am fine to push the one that people here prefer.
>
> This thread became very general and interesting.  I would like to
> ask one particular question:
> i provided 2 patches, `W' and `D'.  The first, `W', address John
> complaint, while `D' follows the original proposal.
> As i said, i have no preference between, i just want to provide
> the missing functionality.  Both patches provide the same.
> The question is, what patch should apply?

I don't see further comments so i have chosen the patch
`W', i.e., the one following John's way.
I have pushed it to master branch as commit a7e9d1cc