[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation
From: |
Alfred M\. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation |
Date: |
Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:35:15 +0100 |
Chong Yidong wrote:
> Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> why on earth does C-x C-b and C-x C-f ask me to confirm when I wish to
>>> open a new buffer/file?
>> So as to help prevent doing it by mistake when you mistyped.
>> Set confirm-nonexistent-file-or-buffer to nil to get back the old
>> behavior (or just hit RET twice, of course).
>
> I see, I didn't realize you intended to make it the default.
>
> I don't think it's a good default. With minibuffer completion, typing
> mistakes don't happen all that often, and it can be disconcerting to
> have a RET rejected. You might argue that it's no big deal to type a
> second RET, but it's similarly no big deal to kill the buffer and try
> again in the very few occasions that you make a mistake.
I often have dozens of buffers open, including "foo.lisp" and "foos/" and
completion is not the panacea.
it IS a big deal to have to kill the buffer:
with confirm-nonexistent-file-or-buffer = t:
C-x b fo TAB [expands to "foo"] RET [confirm?] . TAB RET ==> foo.lisp
with confirm-nonexistent-file-or-buffer = nil:
C-x b fo TAB [expands to "foo"] RET [new buffer] C-x k RET C-x b Up . TAB
RET
==> foo.lisp
For the later example, if I open a file that I didn't intend to open,
I use C-x C-v (find-alternate-file) instead of killing the buffer, and
reopening the file.
Maybe the tab completion could be better, having a modal very terse
confirmation question enabled by default, is not a good idea though;
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, (continued)
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Stefan Monnier, 2008/11/21
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/11/22
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Stefan Monnier, 2008/11/22
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/11/23
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Stefan Monnier, 2008/11/23
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/11/24
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Stefan Monnier, 2008/11/24
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2008/11/22
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Ulrich Mueller, 2008/11/22
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Stefan Monnier, 2008/11/22
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation,
Alfred M\. Szmidt <=
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Stefan Monnier, 2008/11/21
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/11/21
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Chong Yidong, 2008/11/21
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Tassilo Horn, 2008/11/21
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Stefan Monnier, 2008/11/21
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/11/22
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Miles Bader, 2008/11/21
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, mail, 2008/11/22
- Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Miles Bader, 2008/11/22
Re: C-x C-b and C-x C-f bugging about confirmation, Ted Zlatanov, 2008/11/21