help-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: How to get rid of *GNU Emacs* buffer on start-up?


From: Kevin Rodgers
Subject: Re: How to get rid of *GNU Emacs* buffer on start-up?
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:54:48 -0600
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707)

Xah Lee wrote:
On Sep 19, 7:35 pm, Kevin Rodgers <address@hidden> wrote:
XahLeewrote:
In summary: the problem with find-file is that it promps user to enter
a file name upfront. The problem with switch-to-buffer is that it
doesn't promp to save when user closes it. In both, the functions are
simply not designed for creating a new temp buffer.

Wow, if you had put 1% of the effort into coding that you put into this
thread, you could have come up with something like this:

(defun switch-to-new-buffer ()
   "Switch to a new *scratch* buffer."
   (interactive)
   (switch-to-buffer (generate-new-buffer "*scratch*"))
   (setq switch-to-new-buffer t))
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, I meant buffer-offer-save.

If it's such a huge problem for 99% of users, you could propose to the
maintainers that it be added to files.el

Thanks. But the issue is not about how to code a better switch-to-new-
buffer. The issue is about criticism of *scratch* buffer, and a
suggestion that emacs should remove it.

Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Here's my attempt at critical thinking:

1. You said that find-file and switch-to-buffer each have problems, so I
wrote a new command that has neither problem.  That is called a
solution.

2. You said that neither function is designed for creating a new
temporary buffer.  That is true of find-file, which can create a new
buffer, but a buffer whose contents are to be persisted i.e. not
temporary.  I think switch-to-buffer _is_ designed for creating a new
temporary buffer, just a buffer that has a user-specified name.

3. You contradict yourself to some degree by complaining that temporary
buffers can be killed without prompting the user about whether and under
what name to save them.  I think it would be clearer if you said "empty"
buffer instead of "temporary".

If you didn't read the original article, please see:

http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization_scratch_buffer.html

I prefer progress to modernization.

--
Kevin Rodgers
Denver, Colorado, USA





reply via email to

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