[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#11298: Recipe to surface *code-conversion-work* buffer
From: |
Jambunathan K |
Subject: |
bug#11298: Recipe to surface *code-conversion-work* buffer |
Date: |
Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:24:01 +0530 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.95 (windows-nt) |
martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> writes:
>>> This is my little excursion in to killing *scratch* (to death?)
>>
>> Now I am wondering whether:
>> 1. *scratch* buffer re-generates itself
>
> It does because Emacs needs at least one buffer it can display.
As a programmer, I understand the purpose scratch buffer serves. I also
understand that a purpose has been "thrust upon it" to make it seem
(passably) legitimate.
Make that one-true-buffer, the Emacs splash screen or banner.
Kill the banner, when (> buffer-count 0)
Generated banner, when (zerop buffer-count)
Instead of the banner buffer, one can replace it with an immutable,
empty, no-name buffer. By immutable, I mean the user never does
anything with it apart from "seeing it" when conditions so necessitate.
> Is there anything bad about the behavior you observed?
No.
I wrote that mainly to confirm for myself what you observe above the
need for atleast one buffer.
- bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers, (continued)
- bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers, Jambunathan K, 2012/04/21
- bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers, Stefan Monnier, 2012/04/23
- bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers, Lennart Borgman, 2012/04/23
- bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers, Drew Adams, 2012/04/23
- bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers, Stefan Monnier, 2012/04/23
- bug#11298: 24.0.95; (WISH) Re-look scratch buffers, Drew Adams, 2012/04/24
bug#11298: Recipe to surface *code-conversion-work* buffer, Jambunathan K, 2012/04/24
bug#11298: Scratch buffer (Summary of Xah's proposals, as I see it), Jambunathan K, 2012/04/24
bug#11298: Scratch buffer (Summary of Xah's proposals, as I see it), Stefan Monnier, 2012/04/24