Re: How to get rid of *GNU Emacs* buffer on start-up?

[Xah]

On Sep 25, 9:52 pm, Kevin Rodgers <kevin.d.rodg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In Emacs, you can create a buffer without making it the current buffer
> and/or without displaying it.

Yes, but that's used in elisp coding only. For interactive use, it is
of little use to create a new buffer and not have it in front.

> The *scratch* buffer _is_ special: If you kill it, it is
> regenerated,

right, but that's being special because it is special. Kinda
tautology.
If you follow my proposal, that specialness of scratch due to its
regenaration is not needed.

> and its major mode is determined by initial-major-mode.
> No other buffer respects that variable.
> In contrast, the major mode of the new *scratch*<N> buffers is
> determined by default-major-mode.

Ok. But when *scratch* buffer is no longer there as my proposal,
perhaps emacs don't need initial-major-mode anymore. (a simplification
without reducing power!) Or, initial-major-mode can still be used for
whatever other purposes it may have had.

in my previous message i said:

«But, as i detailed, since scratch is simply a new buffer, and since
now you can create multiple scratches, it ceases to be one special
buffer emacs called *scratch*.»

Note the word: “ceases”.

really, please have a open mind and really try to see the other side
of the coin.

> I do not agree that it would be better to eliminate the *scratch* buffer
> in deference to a create-new-buffer command.

asides from the above points (which i give a counter now), why do you
not agree?

> I do not know which Emacs
> developers think *scratch* has problems, or what those alleged problems
> are.

In this thread, Alan has expressed such a opinion after lengthy
debate, as well as another (i think it was Nikolaj). They admitted, or
tentatively said, at least, that if scratch is a usability problem, it
is just a minor, trivial one.

Please, have a open mind and read the thread, as opposed to everyone
trying to win a argument and i more or less repeat every part of my
original writing by rephrasing in every reply.

> You can pry the *scratch* buffer from my cold, dead fingers.  :-)

How about this... most, if not all, oppositions to the proposal goes
from the point of view of defending scratch.  How about give me some
reasons why the proposal is not better than the scratch way?

For example, by the proposal, any emacs old time users can simply
create a scratch by a keyboard shortcut assigned to create-new-buffer.
create-new-buffer can create new buffer by initial-major-mode or
default-major-mode, whichever you might think is better. The create-
new-buffer can have a binding of maybe C-x c. It can be used to create
multiple buffers for scratch purposes. If you don't like the
“untitled” name, you could say it should be “*scratch*”. Why do you
not like these? What reason, would you think, that this is not better
than say emacs staying unchanged, or your proposal of switch-to-new-
scratch-buffer?

Following the above train of thought, perhaps than you don't have
objections now? Is it just the “untiled” name that you guys didn't
think is good? Or is it that you guys really think switch-to-new-
scratch-buffer is a better name than create-new-buffer?

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄