[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: *Occur in buf*?
From: |
Sam Steingold |
Subject: |
Re: *Occur in buf*? |
Date: |
31 Jul 2002 11:33:13 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
> * In message <address@hidden>
> * On the subject of "Re: *Occur in buf*?"
> * Sent on Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:54:58 -0600 (MDT)
> * Honorable Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > I know, but the idea was to rename the occur buffer automatically to
> > include the name of the original buffer. E.g. *Occur: xdisp.c* .
>
> TRT, IMO, is to make `generate-new-buffer-name' mode-specific.
> E.g., have a buffer-local variable 'uniquify-buffer-name' or a similar
> property of the major-mode name, which would hold a mode-specific
> function which is to be run in the buffer being renamed.
>
> This could be a reasonable idea. Do people agree that there
> is a particular "right" behavior for any given mode?
there is probably "right" behavior for most "*foo*" modes.
for file-visiting buffers &c we can always resort to <n>.
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat7.3 GNU/Linux
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.palestine-central.com/links.html>
Whether pronounced "leenooks" or "line-uks", it's better than Windows.
- Re: *Occur in buf*?, (continued)
Re: *Occur in buf*?, Richard Stallman, 2002/07/26
- Re: *Occur in buf*?, Benjamin Rutt, 2002/07/26
- Re: *Occur in buf*?, Kim F. Storm, 2002/07/27
- Re: *Occur in buf*?, Miles Bader, 2002/07/27
- Re: *Occur in buf*?, Kim F. Storm, 2002/07/29
- Re: *Occur in buf*?, Sam Steingold, 2002/07/30
- Re: *Occur in buf*?, Miles Bader, 2002/07/30
- Re: *Occur in buf*?, Richard Stallman, 2002/07/31
- Re: *Occur in buf*?,
Sam Steingold <=
Re: *Occur in buf*?, Miles Bader, 2002/07/28
RE: *Occur in buf*?, Marshall, Simon, 2002/07/25
RE: *Occur in buf*?, Marshall, Simon, 2002/07/29