[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: binding ibuffer to C-x C-b by default

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: binding ibuffer to C-x C-b by default
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 17:57:49 -0700

> Drew is technically correct, in that it's not a _perfect_ superset.
> But it's so damned close that 99% of the users will never even notice
> that something's changed, and I'd guess that the number of people that
> will benefit from the additional functionality/features will vastly
> outstrip those who are devastated that their favorite list-buffers
> keybinding has changed.
> Some of the differences are fairly easy to fix -- e.g., list-buffers
> uses whizzy new-style header-line headers, whereas ibuffer uses
> oldskool simple fixed-width headers.  Some of the keybinding
> differences can also easily be resolved; the only hard cases are a few
> keybindings that can't be made compatible because ibuffer uses those
> keys for something else.
> Anyway, as I say, while the differences exist, they're for the most
> part simply irrelevant.  The right thing to do is to simply switch to
> ibuffer, and then fix stuff up as the need arises (or somebody gets
> the itch to do so).

Miles, you were the one who proposed previously that we switch `C-x C-b' to
ibuffer, so this is no surprise.  We went through all of this before.  What's
new that implies we should change what was concluded before about it?

I asked for a reference to the thread or threads that Dan hinted at, but none
has been presented so far.  Let's at least be able to see what was said and
decided, if we're compelled to go through this all over again.  Seriously, can
someone point us to the thread(s)?  It's not so easy to search for the topic,
perhaps, since "ibuffer" is a substring of "minibuffer".

I seem to recall that there was consensus that we should add missing features to
one or the other, instead of simply switching.  But I don't recall the details.

I don't agree with the characterization you make wrt the features, but I do
agree that much of the functionality of ibuffer would be good to make available
to the buffer menu.  Most of those features are simply commands, IIRC, and
should thus be relatively easy to add to buff-menu.el, while keeping the basic
UI of the latter.

I've made other, orthogonal, extensions to buff-menu.el, which could also be
included.  I much prefer the buffer-menu UI, especially as I extended it, to the
UI of ibuffer.  I have no problem with addition of ibuffer commands (regexp
markings etc.) to buff-menu, however.  On the contrary, they would be a welcome
addition.  I'm in favor of thus giving the buffer menu more Dired-like behavior.
I'm not in favor of simply swapping the buffer menu (`C-x C-b') for ibuffer. 

Let's start with a refresher of what was said before about this topic, if
someone can point to the thread.  For those interested, a description of my
extensions to the buffer menu is here:

reply via email to

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