bug#69993: Wrap window buffers while cycling

[martin rudalics]

>> What is the "fixed order"?  When I use C-x b, that buffer becomes the
>> one most recently shown in that window.
>
> The fixed order is similar to how tabs work in web browsers.
> It would be unexpected when switching to a tab will always
> move it to the end of the tab line.  This is why it's unexpected
> for C-x b to move tabs when tab-line-mode is used.

But the lists of previous and next buffers have to reflect the order in
which these buffers were shown in a window.  You probably  can't map them
directly to tabs.

>> I think 'switch-to-prev-buffer-wrap' already confuses things.  Wrapping,
>> for me, means to wrap around like when navigating on a ring of buffers.
>> Whether this should include buffers never shown in the window before is
>> a different issue IMO.  And whether C-x b should change the order is yet
>> another issue.  So maybe we need three options instead of one...
>
> I can't imagine why anyone would need wrapping when C-x C-left
> will visit hundreds of buffers never shown in the window.

Emacs "wrapped" in that case ever since (with at least two buffers).

> So we need only two options: wrapping buffers shown in the window,
> and to keep the fixed order of C-x b.  So I will create a new request
> for the fixed order of C-x b.  And here is the final patch for wrapping:

I still don't agree with it.  IMHO we have to cater for two cases:

(1) The classic behavior where switching may show a buffer never shown
    in the window before.  I suppose you mean that
    'switch-to-prev-buffer-wrap' does not affect it.  If that's the
    case, please say so.

(2) The new behavior where switching may only show buffers shown in that
    window before.  For this you want to either wrap or not.  So the
    option 'switch-to-prev-buffer-wrap' will affect (2) only.  Right?

I think there's no clean way to provide one single option to choose
between (1) and (2) and whether to wrap.

martin