[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Scratch buffer annoyance

From: Richard Stallman
Subject: Re: Scratch buffer annoyance
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:19:58 -0400

    > As I understand it, part of the idea of this change is that
    > there won't BE a *scratch* buffer if you don't request it
    > in `initial-buffer-contents'.

    It is very useful to create a *scratch* buffer at startup, even if it is
    not displayed immediately.

Why do you find it particularly useful?  I want to try to gauge
how many users would find it desirable.  Would they be so many
that it would be unacceptable to recommend they use this recipe
to set it up?

  (with-current-buffer (get-buffer-create "*scratch*")

    The only problem remains I think that the name `initial-buffer-contents'
    is worse than simply `initial-buffer'.

Sorry, I disagree.

                                            It gives a false impression that
    that some contents gets insterted into some fixed initial buffer.

It doesn't seem like a big flaw to me, but I agree it is a small flaw.

    Perhaps, a better name is `initial-display'?

That seems a little less clear than `initial-buffer-contents'.
However, perhaps `initial-buffer-setup' is better.

reply via email to

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