emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[Emacs-bug-tracker] bug#461: closed (delete-window means "get out of my


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [Emacs-bug-tracker] bug#461: closed (delete-window means "get out of my face" even for sole window)
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:34:02 +0000

Your message dated Sat, 09 Jul 2011 14:32:56 -0400
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#461: delete-window means "get out of my face" even for 
sole window
has caused the GNU bug report #461,
regarding delete-window means "get out of my face" even for sole window
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
461: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=461
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: delete-window means "get out of my face" even for sole window Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:29:50 +0800
Ah, why of course: C-x 0 (delete-window) issued when there is only one
window, should reveal the next best buffer.

Why? Because when the user types C-x 0, he is saying "get out of my
face", and emacs should do what he means. Indeed, it should be just
like he hit C-x b RET, picking the default buffer prompted with.
(I say don't prompt him on C-x 0, but you could if you insist.)

And don't bury the old buffer, just move it one down in the list.

Currently C-x 0 gives
"Attempt to delete minibuffer or sole ordinary window"

I am only discussing "sole ordinary window". As far as deleting the
minibuffer, that should still be illegal.




--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#461: delete-window means "get out of my face" even for sole window Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 14:32:56 -0400 User-agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/)
I don't see a need to keep open this particular report, which was marked
"wontfix" some time ago.

Stefan Monnier wrote:

> There's already "C-x b RET", "C-x <right>", "C-x <left>" and probably
> several other ways to do what you want, so I see no need to change
> C-x 0 in the way you suggest.
>
> C-x 0 currently doesn't care about buffers, only about windows, so your
> "extension" doesn't seem very natural to me.


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

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