Re: erase-buffer (was: with-output-to-temp-buffer)

[Miles Bader]

On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:06:21AM +0900, Kenichi Handa wrote:
> > So my question is: why is erase-buffer a command?
> > I didn't know it was a command until 5 days ago, it is not bound to any
> > key, and I can't think of any circumstance where a user might want to say
> > M-x erase-buffer RET.
> 
> I often use it in *shell* and *gdb* buffers when they grow
> too much.

It's a `weird' command in the way it ignores normal restrictions though.

I think for user-use, it might make more sense to define some other command
that acts more normally (i.e., obeys buffer narrowing, etc.).  Perhaps call
it `delete-whole-buffer' (analogous to `mark-whole-buffer').

[Are there in fact programmatic uses that depend on erase-buffer's weird
behavior?  I'll bet in some cases, it might actually be a bug...]

-Miles
-- 
"I distrust a research person who is always obviously busy on a task."
   --Robert Frosch, VP, GM Research