GNU bug report logs - #38294
[PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 38294 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 38294 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:56:43 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Currently, ‘ido-kill-buffer’ does essentially nothing to virtual
buffers.  (They are visited and then immediately killed.)  The attached
patch changes that so that they are instead removed from ‘recentf-list’,
akin to ‘ido-kill-buffer-at-head’.

[0001-Handle-killing-of-virtual-buffers-in-Ido.patch (text/x-diff, inline)]

From 4295cac14ea280d43c0aa493520543aa403a4c2e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski+git <at> gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:34:58 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org

* lisp/ido.el (ido-buffer-internal): Handle killing of virtual buffers
as a special case.
(ido-visit-buffer): Document the special case.
---
 lisp/ido.el | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lisp/ido.el b/lisp/ido.el
index 79f259b819..bf3f57883d 100644
--- a/lisp/ido.el
+++ b/lisp/ido.el
@@ -2286,7 +2286,10 @@ ido-buffer-internal
        ((and ido-enable-virtual-buffers
 	     ido-virtual-buffers
 	     (setq filename (assoc buf ido-virtual-buffers)))
-	(ido-visit-buffer (find-file-noselect (cdr filename)) method t))
+        (if (eq method 'kill)
+            (setq recentf-list
+	          (delete (cdr filename) recentf-list))
+	  (ido-visit-buffer (find-file-noselect (cdr filename)) method t)))
 
        ((and (eq ido-create-new-buffer 'prompt)
 	     (null require-match)
@@ -4128,6 +4131,8 @@ ido-visit-buffer
       (setq buffer (buffer-name buffer)))
   (let (win newframe)
     (cond
+     ;; "killing" of virtual buffers is handled in
+     ;; `ido-buffer-internal'
      ((eq method 'kill)
       (if record
 	  (ido-record-command 'kill-buffer buffer))
-- 
2.17.1

Message #8 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 19:40:57 +0100

Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Currently, ‘ido-kill-buffer’ does essentially nothing to virtual
> buffers.  (They are visited and then immediately killed.)  The attached
> patch changes that so that they are instead removed from ‘recentf-list’,
> akin to ‘ido-kill-buffer-at-head’.

I noticed that you have gotten no reply here.  Could you please
describe what problem it is you are solving, is this fixing a bug or
adding a new feature?

How can I test that this code works as advertised, preferably starting
from "emacs -Q"?  Please give a step by step description, including a
description of what happens before and after applying your patch.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message #11 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 09:21:30 +0100

Hi Stefan,

Thanks a lot for getting back to me.

> I noticed that you have gotten no reply here.  Could you please
> describe what problem it is you are solving, is this fixing a bug or
> adding a new feature?

I would say this neither fixes a bug nor introduces a new feature;
merely makes ‘ido-kill-buffer’ behave as I expect it to.

> How can I test that this code works as advertised, preferably starting
> from "emacs -Q"?  Please give a step by step description, including a
> description of what happens before and after applying your patch.

What follows is a way to reproduce this scenario, assuming the file
‘foo’ does not exist.

Start by

  M-x recentf-mode <RET>
  M-x ido-mode <RET>
  M-: (setq ido-use-virtual-buffers t) <RET>
  C-x C-f foo <RET> <RET>
  C-x C-s
  C-x k <RET>

Now, ‘foo’ is a _virtual buffer_ in the terminology of Ido, and since we
have ‘ido-use-virtual-buffers’ set to t, we should be able to operate on
it: switch to it or kill it.  Switching works fine; however, *killing is
a no-op*.

At this point, when you do

  C-x k foo <RET>

you will notice that ‘foo’ remains in the list of buffers, despite being
“killed.”  You will still see when doing C-x b or C-x k.  In fact, you
can repeat the above step ad infinitum.

What this patch changes is exactly this behavior: once a virtual buffer
has been “killed” from C-x k, it no longer appears in the list of
buffers.

Let me know if this makes sense.

Best regards,
Dario

-- 
dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com :: +49 1525 8666837
%   gpg --keyserver 'hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net' \
\`>     --recv-keys '744A4F0B4F1C9371'

Message #14 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 10:00:24 +0100

Hi Dario,

Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com> writes:

> What follows is a way to reproduce this scenario, assuming the file
> ‘foo’ does not exist.
>
> Start by
>
>   M-x recentf-mode <RET>
>   M-x ido-mode <RET>
>   M-: (setq ido-use-virtual-buffers t) <RET>
>   C-x C-f foo <RET> <RET>
>   C-x C-s
>   C-x k <RET>
>
> Now, ‘foo’ is a _virtual buffer_ in the terminology of Ido, and since we
> have ‘ido-use-virtual-buffers’ set to t, we should be able to operate on
> it: switch to it or kill it.  Switching works fine; however, *killing is
> a no-op*.
>
> At this point, when you do
>
>   C-x k foo <RET>
>
> you will notice that ‘foo’ remains in the list of buffers, despite being
> “killed.”  You will still see when doing C-x b or C-x k.  In fact, you
> can repeat the above step ad infinitum.

Thank you for the detailed explanation.

> What this patch changes is exactly this behavior: once a virtual buffer
> has been “killed” from C-x k, it no longer appears in the list of
> buffers.
>
> Let me know if this makes sense.

I think the current behaviour makes sense, but I can very much see
that some users would want what you suggest.  Both choices here are
valid.

Given that Ido has behaved like this for a long time, I would
be wary of changing the default behaviour at this point.  It risks
surprising users.

My suggestion would theferefore be to add a new option to enable the
behaviour you suggest.  It could perhaps be named something like
ido-kill-removes-virtual-buffers, and should be disabled by default.

What do you think?

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message #19 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>, 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 15:20:17 +0200

Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:

>> What this patch changes is exactly this behavior: once a virtual buffer
>> has been “killed” from C-x k, it no longer appears in the list of
>> buffers.
>>
>> Let me know if this makes sense.
>
> I think the current behaviour makes sense, but I can very much see
> that some users would want what you suggest.  Both choices here are
> valid.

I think so, too, but I don't use this combination of features, so I'm
not sure.

It does seem natural that killing a buffer would remove it from the list
of buffers ido-mode offers up, though, so I'm not totally sure whether
any ido users really expect this behaviour, or if they've just lived
with it as a bug.

Any opinions here?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #22 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>, 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 15:01:17 -0700

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:
>
>>> What this patch changes is exactly this behavior: once a virtual buffer
>>> has been “killed” from C-x k, it no longer appears in the list of
>>> buffers.
>>>
>>> Let me know if this makes sense.
>>
>> I think the current behaviour makes sense, but I can very much see
>> that some users would want what you suggest.  Both choices here are
>> valid.
>
> I think so, too, but I don't use this combination of features, so I'm
> not sure.
>
> It does seem natural that killing a buffer would remove it from the list
> of buffers ido-mode offers up, though, so I'm not totally sure whether
> any ido users really expect this behaviour, or if they've just lived
> with it as a bug.
>
> Any opinions here?

The idea specifically with ido-use-virtual-buffers (from reading its doc
string, not from being a user) is that one shouldn't have to worry about
whether or not the buffer is open or not.  To my mind, that implies that
it means that even when manually killing buffers, I should still be able
to switch to it.

(It also seems a bit too surprising to now change the long-standing
default behaviour.)

However, if some users specifically want this behaviour only for
auto-cleaned buffers (e.g. by midnight), I don't see why we couldn't
provide it optionally.

Anyways, I don't know if there is anything useful in the above or if I'm
just rambling.  I agree that it would be good to hear the opinion of
someone else who actually uses this.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message #25 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>, 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 10:16:37 +0200

Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:

> The idea specifically with ido-use-virtual-buffers (from reading its doc
> string, not from being a user) is that one shouldn't have to worry about
> whether or not the buffer is open or not.  To my mind, that implies that
> it means that even when manually killing buffers, I should still be able
> to switch to it.
>
> (It also seems a bit too surprising to now change the long-standing
> default behaviour.)

Yeah, that sounds reasonable.  The only question is whether manual
killing should be handled differently than automatic killing (i.e., by
midnight.el).

But...  that would be a kinda finicky interface, with C-x k working one
way, and indirect calls to it another.

So I agree with you that this is probably not something we want....

> However, if some users specifically want this behaviour only for
> auto-cleaned buffers (e.g. by midnight), I don't see why we couldn't
> provide it optionally.

An option for something as obscure as this seems like overkill.

> Anyways, I don't know if there is anything useful in the above or if I'm
> just rambling.  I agree that it would be good to hear the opinion of
> someone else who actually uses this.

It would.  :-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #28 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>, 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 01:37:58 -0700

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> An option for something as obscure as this seems like overkill.

Agreed.

>> Anyways, I don't know if there is anything useful in the above or if I'm
>> just rambling.  I agree that it would be good to hear the opinion of
>> someone else who actually uses this.
>
> It would.  :-)

I guess we could give it N more weeks or days for anyone to chime in
before closing this as wontfix.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message #31 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>, 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 10:39:10 +0200

Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:

> I guess we could give it N more weeks or days for anyone to chime in
> before closing this as wontfix.

Yup.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #34 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 11:50:10 +0200

Hi Stefan, hi Lars,

> The idea specifically with ido-use-virtual-buffers (from reading its doc
> string, not from being a user) is that one shouldn't have to worry about
> whether or not the buffer is open or not.  To my mind, that implies that
> it means that even when manually killing buffers, I should still be able
> to switch to it.

I agree with this.  In that case, should we prevent virtual buffers from
being listed in ‘ido-kill-buffer’ in the first place?  Selecting one of
them to be “killed” results in a no-op anyway, so why give people the
impression that something happens?

Best regards,
Dario

-- 
dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com :: +49 1525 8666837
%   gpg --keyserver 'hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net' \
\`>     --recv-keys '744A4F0B4F1C9371'

Message #37 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 04:04:16 -0700

Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com> writes:

> I agree with this.  In that case, should we prevent virtual buffers from
> being listed in ‘ido-kill-buffer’ in the first place?  Selecting one of
> them to be “killed” results in a no-op anyway, so why give people the
> impression that something happens?

Killing it isn't a no-op though.  When you kill it, you get prompted to
save changes, it runs hooks in the background, presumably removes it
from active memory, other functions will no longer be able to just
switch to it, etc., etc.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message #40 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:23:43 +0200

Hi Stefan,

> Killing it isn't a no-op though.  When you kill it, you get prompted to
> save changes, it runs hooks in the background, presumably removes it
> from active memory, other functions will no longer be able to just
> switch to it, etc., etc.

Point taken.  In that case, my only complaint would be that
‘ido-kill-buffer-at-head’ does treat killing a virtual buffer as
removing it from ‘recentf-list’ (just as suggested here), so there is
some inconsistency.  However, I can live with it.

Best regards,
Dario

-- 
dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com :: +49 1525 8666837
%   gpg --keyserver 'hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net' \
\`>     --recv-keys '744A4F0B4F1C9371'

Message #43 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>, 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:00:56 +0200

Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Stefan,
>
>> Killing it isn't a no-op though.  When you kill it, you get prompted to
>> save changes, it runs hooks in the background, presumably removes it
>> from active memory, other functions will no longer be able to just
>> switch to it, etc., etc.

Yeah, but these "virtual buffers" don't really exist, so none of that
will happen, I'd have thought?

> Point taken.  In that case, my only complaint would be that
> ‘ido-kill-buffer-at-head’ does treat killing a virtual buffer as
> removing it from ‘recentf-list’ (just as suggested here), so there is
> some inconsistency.  However, I can live with it.

Yeah, that is inconsistent:

;;; KILL CURRENT BUFFER
(defun ido-kill-buffer-at-head ()
  "Kill the buffer at the head of `ido-matches'.
If cursor is not at the end of the user input, delete to end of input."
[...]
       ;; Handle virtual buffers
       ((assoc buf ido-virtual-buffers)
	(setq recentf-list
	      (delete (cdr (assoc buf ido-virtual-buffers)) recentf-list))

So now I'm kinda thinking that your original patch is correct.  :-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #46 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>,
 Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 09:14:49 -0700

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

>>> Killing it isn't a no-op though.  When you kill it, you get prompted to
>>> save changes, it runs hooks in the background, presumably removes it
>>> from active memory, other functions will no longer be able to just
>>> switch to it, etc., etc.
>
> Yeah, but these "virtual buffers" don't really exist, so none of that
> will happen, I'd have thought?

But the virtual buffers are only visible on `C-x C-f', not on `C-x b',
right?

At least, that's what it looks like when I do:

0. emacs -Q
1. M-x ido-mode
2. (setq ido-virtual-buffers t)
3. C-x C-f existing-file-foo RET
4. C-x k RET
5. C-x k      => existing-file-foo is not shown

But I may very well be overlooking something...

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message #49 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 23:58:27 +0200

> But the virtual buffers are only visible on `C-x C-f', not on `C-x b',
> right?

They’re visible everywhere: also on ‘C-x b’ and ‘C-x k’.  The latter is
what this patch is related to.

> 2. (setq ido-virtual-buffers t)

The correct variable is ‘ido-use-virtual-buffers’, not
‘ido-virtual-buffers’.

Best regards,
Dario

-- 
dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com :: +49 1525 8666837
%   gpg --keyserver 'hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net' \
\`>     --recv-keys '744A4F0B4F1C9371'

Message #52 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 15:56:08 -0700

Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com> writes:

>> But the virtual buffers are only visible on `C-x C-f', not on `C-x b',
>> right?
>
> They’re visible everywhere: also on ‘C-x b’ and ‘C-x k’.  The latter is
> what this patch is related to.
>
>> 2. (setq ido-virtual-buffers t)
>
> The correct variable is ‘ido-use-virtual-buffers’, not
> ‘ido-virtual-buffers’.

Uhm, okay, yes that explains why I didn't see it...

But my question is then why this buffer even shows up on `C-x k' if it's
a virtual buffer.  Instead of making it do something on kill, isn't it
better to just never show it if it's not actually open?

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message #55 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 10:03:02 +0200

> But my question is then why this buffer even shows up on `C-x k' if it's
> a virtual buffer.  Instead of making it do something on kill, isn't it
> better to just never show it if it's not actually open?

That’s exactly why I asked “In that case, should we prevent virtual
buffers from being listed in ‘ido-kill-buffer’ in the first place?”
before.

To me, both _not offering virtual buffers to be killed at all_ and
_offering them but treating killing as removing from ‘recentf-list’_
make sense.  The latter I prefer simply for consistency with
‘ido-kill-buffer-at-head’ (i.e., function that is called when you press
‘C-k’ on a buffer during ‘C-x b’).

Best regards,
Dario

-- 
dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com :: +49 1525 8666837
%   gpg --keyserver 'hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net' \
\`>     --recv-keys '744A4F0B4F1C9371'

Message #58 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>, 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 12:29:20 +0200

Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com> writes:

> To me, both _not offering virtual buffers to be killed at all_ and
> _offering them but treating killing as removing from ‘recentf-list’_
> make sense.  The latter I prefer simply for consistency with
> ‘ido-kill-buffer-at-head’ (i.e., function that is called when you press
> ‘C-k’ on a buffer during ‘C-x b’).

Yeah, I think you're right, and the original patch was the correct
solution here: When the user explicitly (and interactively) kills a
buffer, then they expect that buffer to go away.  (There isn't any other
reasonable interpretation for that interactive action.)

It's perhaps slightly inconsistent, but I think it's more DWIM.

So I'm applying your patch to Emacs 28, and we'll see if any users of
this ido setting complains (in which case we should be prepared to
revert it).

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #65 received at 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>,
 Dario Gjorgjevski <dario.gjorgjevski <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 38294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38294: [PATCH] Handle killing of virtual buffers in Ido
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 07:03:26 -0700

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> Yeah, I think you're right, and the original patch was the correct
> solution here: When the user explicitly (and interactively) kills a
> buffer, then they expect that buffer to go away.  (There isn't any other
> reasonable interpretation for that interactive action.)
>
> It's perhaps slightly inconsistent, but I think it's more DWIM.

Thanks!

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.