[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:11:19 -0700 |
> This is the fault of `ido'. The normal C-x b just asks for
> an extra RET to confirm you do want to create a new buffer
> (under the control of confirm-nonexistent-file-or-buffer).
Actually, with the default value of `after-completion' I do not see it ever
asking for confirmation. Did you mean only if the user has customized that
option to something other than nil and the default value? If not, I guess I'm
missing something.
The doc says that confirmation is required for `after-completion' only if
`minibuffer-complete-and-exit' is called immediately after
`minibuffer-complete'.
[The doc actually phrases that backward. Why it does that, and why it does not
mention the keys `C-j' and `TAB' instead of the commands, I don't know. Just to
make it harder to understand, I guess. ;-)]
But I don't see any `C-x b' scenario that leads to confirmation being required,
if the option has the default value of `after-completion'. AFAICT, when that is
the option value, `C-x b' (`switch-to-buffer'), does not even use a `must-match'
completion keymap to read the buffer name, so `minibuffer-complete-and-exit' is
not even bound to a key.
(No, I didn't check the C source code to be sure, but the debugger shows that
`C-j' invokes `exit-minibuffer' for `read-buffer-to-switch' with an option value
of `after-completion'.)
What am I missing? Is there a way to hit TAB for a nonexistent buffer name and
have confirmation be requested? If I type a nonexistent name and hit TAB
(getting "No match"), and then hit `C-j' or `RET', the name is accepted without
confirmation.
- bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers, Jambunathan K, 2012/04/21
- bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers, Stefan Monnier, 2012/04/21
- bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers, Jambunathan K, 2012/04/21
- bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers, Stefan Monnier, 2012/04/23
- bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers, Lennart Borgman, 2012/04/23
- bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers,
Drew Adams <=
- bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers, Stefan Monnier, 2012/04/23
- bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers, Drew Adams, 2012/04/24
bug#11298: Recipe to surface *code-conversion-work* buffer, Jambunathan K, 2012/04/24
bug#11298: Scratch buffer (Summary of Xah's proposals, as I see it), Jambunathan K, 2012/04/24