bug#37514: PATCH: Add setting to allow switching to an already-visible buffer by default

[Stefan Kangas]

Hi Jefferson,

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 21:24:45 +0000
>> From: Jefferson Carpenter <jefferson@aoeu2code.com>
>> 
>> A not-uncommon workflow of mine is to have more than one window looking at 
>> the same buffer in several
>> different places.  Often in one of these windows I switch to some other 
>> buffer (perhaps a shell) and then want
>> to switch directly back to the same place I was just looking at in main 
>> buffer.  However since my main buffer is
>> already visible in another window, C-x b (switch-to-buffer) does not default 
>> to that buffer, but prefers a buffer
>> that is not already visible.  This customization setting allows users to 
>> override that behavior so that
>> switch-to-buffer does not prefer buffers that are not already visible.
>
> Why is it important what "C-x b" offers as the default?  You can still
> type the name of the buffer you want and switch to it.
>
> FWIW, I use the workflow you mention from time to time, and I never
> felt the need for such an option, because its effect will be global on
> the entire session, and I don't want it everywhere.  I'd need to reset
> such an option when I go back to the other workflows, which would be a
> nuisance.
>
> And if the above is somehow still not satisfactory, you can always
> write a trivial wrapper around switch-to-buffer, which behaves the way
> you like.  Why do we need to canonicalize this in Emacs?

martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> writes:

>> The patch I attached to the original email just adds a customization
>> setting to make that a more general option.
>
> I don't oppose your patch.  But as Eli's reaction shows we probably
> need some additional motivation for installing it.

It has now been 15 weeks without anyone expressing any support for
your change, unfortunately.

I also don't oppose your patch, but I also don't really see a clear
benefit to including it in Emacs.  Eli, the Emacs maintainer, has
stated above that he thinks it's better if you add local
customizations to make this work the way you want.  I think that is a
good suggestion, and one which is also very much the Emacs way when we
disagree with this or that design choice.

I would suggest that we give this a few more weeks to give more people
a chance to chime in.  If there is no one else expressing support for
your suggestion within that time, or any objections to my suggestion,
I will close this as wontfix.

Thank you for your interest in Emacs, and taking the time to write up
a patch.  That is really the best way to make sure we can concretely
discuss and make progress on any feature request.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas