RE: separate name uniquification from `generate-new-buffer-name'

[Drew Adams]

> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 12:53 PM
>
> > > Something I would like to see is separation of
> > > <N>-suffix name uniquifying from
> > > `generate-new-buffer-name'.  The latter could
> > > just use the more general unique-naming function
> > > (unless C optimization is important in that
> > > particular case).
> >
> > Mostly agreed.  As you noticed, uniquify uses advices and
> > that should be fixed.  A good way to fix it is to come up
> > with a good name-buffer-function variable that holds a
> > function that's run whenever a buffer name is chosen or
> > modified.  This variable's default would be a function
> > that implements the usual <N> stuff and it could be
> > replaced by uniquify to do something more clever.
> 
> I agree. Not sure what disagreement there is (why "mostly"?).
> Everything you say sounds OK to me.
> 
> The kind of uniquifying I proposed, and the kind that
> generate-new-buffer-name' does, seem to be quite
> different from the uniquifying that uniquify.el does.
>
> That does not mean that the logical place for a
> function such as I proposed would not be uniquify.el.
> uniquify.el could either be broadened (e.g. more than
> one uniquifying method) or keep to the kind of naming
> it does now.

ping.
Bugs 1338 and 6259 have finally been closed.
But this is still undone, I believe.  It would be
good if Someone(TM) were to make progress here.