[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x C-v considered harmful
From: |
Juri Linkov |
Subject: |
Re: C-x C-v considered harmful |
Date: |
Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:49:00 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) |
> Fully half the reason I use `find-alternate-file' is to _kill_ the current
> buffer (mistaken file visit or not). I use `C-x C-f' when I want to keep
> the
> current buffer, and `C-x C-v' when I want to kill it. I wouldn't have
> thought I
> was alone in that, but I'm beginning to get the impression that I might
> be.
>
> Of course, getting rid of the current buffer is why one uses it. The
> question is whether it is sufficienty easier than C-x C-k RET and M-p
> to justify giving it a key binding.
I'd like to add one more use case of C-x C-v. I use ffap that allows
C-x C-v to grab an absolute file name from the current buffer to
the minibuffer. For example, one scenario is the following:
M-x shell RET
dpkg -L debian-package RET
This command outputs a list of absolute file names in the *shell* buffer.
C-p C-p C-p ... C-x C-v RET
After moving point to the necessary absolute file name, C-x C-v
puts the file name to the minibuffer and RET just visits it.
I don't need to preserve the *shell* buffer after that.
However, maybe I would tolerate an yes-no confirmation in the *shell*
buffer since I more often use M-! for the same purposes.
Of course, this raises a question whether an information's worth in the
*shell* buffer is higher than in the *Shell Command Output* buffer
and shouldn't killing the *Shell Command Output* buffer ask a confirmation
as well?
Then what about the Async shell command that runs a command in the background?
Should C-x C-v ask a confirmation in the *Async Shell Command* buffer?
Currently it simply kills the child process without a question.
BTW, I am experiencing a higher risk of losing information with M-!
more than with C-x C-v. M-! is difficult to type with one hand
because the `1' key is located directly above the Shift key,
so a combination with the Meta key often produces the wrong key M-1
(with Shift unpressed). Typing a shell command in a Dired buffer
without paying attention to the screen results in a complete mess
(since most Dired keybndings are just one letter) that needs to be
analyzed afterwards to determine the damage (looking for files marked,
copied, moved, deleted, etc.)
--
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, (continued)
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2009/07/05
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/05
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2009/07/04
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/05
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2009/07/06
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/06
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2009/07/07
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Robert J. Chassell, 2009/07/06
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful,
Juri Linkov <=
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/06
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/07
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/08
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/09
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/09
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/09
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/09
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Drew Adams, 2009/07/09
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/10
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/13