On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 10:28 AM Michael Welsh Duggan <
mwd@md5i.com> wrote:
Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:
> And please don't change the behaviour of `switch-to-buffer' in such a
> drastic manner. People are used to it as it is.
On the other hand, I've hated the current behavior for years (as does a
colleague of mine),
There are a /lot/ of packages that replace switch-to-buffer. Helm, Ivy, and all seem to have one, as well as a plethora of stand-alone packages. Looking at any website where users ask for help with emacs shows lots of questions on this topic, generally answered by people suggesting packages or elisp snippets like "switch-to-last-buffer" or "switch-to-previous-buffer" or "iflipb" (these three garnered from <15 seconds of searching). I myself used a customized bury-buffer alternative for years (since before there were websites), then switched to an alternative next-frame-or-buffer based around a macOS ui pattern on \M-` for my decade+ in that world, and am now trying something new (since the window manager I'm more or less stuck with on my current linux-based system interacts badly with the M-` workflow).
My point being: I'm sure that there are people who "are used to it as it", and that's evidenced by the large number of people who are used to it being unusable as-is. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made for not changing the default, but I also think that there's at least enough evidence to support an emacs-standard option.
Hope that helps,
~Chad