On Nov 17, 12:39 pm, Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> wrote:
From:Xah<xah...@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:17:44 -0800
(PST)
typically, a user has several user buffers open, and as far
as i guess many programers who use emacs extensively has like
hundreds of buffers open. Cycling them one by one is not much
useful.
No one in their right mind will cycle buffers. This feature
exists if your buffer is one or two away. Anything more than
that, you should use the menu-bar's Buffers menu (or select the
buffer by its name with C-x b).
So, when clicking on the buffer name, showing a menu is more
useful than cycling buffer.
As I already said, I disagree: if I need to switch to a buffer that
is just one buffer away in either direction, with the current
behavior I get that in one click. With your suggestion, clicking
on the buffer name would be the same as Buffers from the menu bar,
and this duplication of functionality is a waste of scarce
resources, IMO.
you mentioned that normally cycling buffer is only useful when there
are few buffers. So, the click to cycle behavior on the mode line is
of limited use.
what i'm saynig in response, is that if now we make the clicking on
the mode line behavior to show list of buffers, this would widen the
usefulness.
after all, there's already a menu and keyboard shortcut for Next/
Previous buffer. So, the current behavior of clicking on the mode
line to switch to next/previous buffer, is also, a duplication of
functionality as far as duplication of functionalities is concerned.
switching between modes is not rarely used. I'd estimate it
is used every other hour at least.
Please provide some use-cases to back this up. FWIW, I almost
never switch the major mode in the same buffer, unless Emacs
didn't switch into the right one to begin with, and even then I
only do that once in a given buffer.
those who use *scratch*, or create new buffer, or create new
file... he may need to switch to the righ lang mode.
Usually, creating a new file with C-x C-f already switches on the
right mode. And even if Emacs somehow gets this wrong, it's a
one-time event for that buffer.
creating a new file is just one example. Others are using *scratch*
or creating a new buffer. As i have already stated clearly in my
previous post, in general, when user creates a new buffer for scratch
purposes, switching mode is needed.
It is not just about C-x C-f. Furthere, C-x C-f gets you the right
mode only when you use the right file name suffix. When a user
creates a new buffer for scratch purposes, he does not need to name
the file with the right suffix. If he does, that's for the purpose of
making it into the right mode. And if so, it is necessary only if he
doesn't already have a easy or proper way to get the buffer into the
right mode. In other words, the file suffix induced mode switching is
a side effect.
Of course, one may argue that user might just do Alt+x ‹mode name›.
But remember the context is for those who are new to emacs, on
intuitiveness, with regards to the behavior of clicking on mode line.
In summary, i argued that clicking on the major mode section of the
mode line's behavior is better if it just list available modes where
user can switch. You argued no by saying that it's not often needed
to switch mode. I argued it is needed, in several scenarios,
summarized as when user needs a scratch buffer. Then you argued that
find-file will get you the right mode with right suffix name. I argue
now, that this disregards 2 other common methods of using a buffer
for scratch purposes, namely, the *scratch* buffer and
switch-to-buffer method, and furhter, find-file gets the right mode
only when the user names the file with the proper suffix, and
further, such is a side effect not a proper method, because for
example, the suffix to mode correspondence is not always
straightforward and known to vast majority of programers and
especially when the language is not one of the top 10 popular ones.
Xah ∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄