[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#58005: 13.1.4; Can't work with indirect buffers

From: Ikumi Keita
Subject: bug#58005: 13.1.4; Can't work with indirect buffers
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2022 18:20:24 +0900

Hi Philipp, please keep "Cc: 58005@debbugs.gnu.org" when you reply so
that the thread of the discussion remain in the bug tracker.

>>>>> "Philipp G. Haselwarter" <philipp@haselwarter.org> writes:
> Dear Keita,
> Thank you for looking into this issue.

> I frequently use indirect buffers when editing longer tex documents.
> When I need to modify more than one part of a document at a time,
> I split the base buffer via C-x 4 c `clone-indirect-buffer-other-window`.
> This has the advantage that each view of the buffer has its own notion
> of region, point, and marks. Frankly, I'd be surprised if this didn't affect
> a fairly large number of users, as C-x 4 c is bound in vanilla Emacs.

> The `(buffer-file-name (buffer-base-buffer))` pattern is pretty common,
> for instance a simple grep in the emacs repo yields 58 hits alone, so I
> think it's a reasonable solution. I would of course be happy to test and
> report any other related issues that may arise.

Thank you for your reply. It's probably true that `buffer-base-buffer'
makes `buffer-file-name' usable in indirect buffers. However, what I'm
worrying is that other potential incompatibilities sparsely continue to
pop up and each ad-hoc deal eventually amounts to make AUCTeX unstable,
given a lot of subtlety regarding to `TeX-master-file'.[1]

Any takers out there? (My preliminary idea is, as I wrote in my previous
message, to modify C-c C-c and alikes so that they suggest to switch to
the base buffer and run there when they are called in an indirect

Ikumi Keita
#StandWithUkraine #StopWarInUkraine

[1] Thread titled "Output to directory patch" in

reply via email to

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