GNU bug report logs - #461
delete-window means "get out of my face" even for sole window

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#461: closed (delete-window means "get out of my face" even
 for sole window)
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:34:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Sat, 09 Jul 2011 14:32:56 -0400
with message-id <hdiprb5mp3.fsf <at> fencepost.gnu.org>
and subject line Re: bug#461: delete-window means "get out of my face" even for sole window
has caused the GNU bug report #461,
regarding delete-window means "get out of my face" even for sole window
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
461: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=461
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: jidanni <at> jidanni.org
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: delete-window means "get out of my face" even for sole window
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:29:50 +0800

Ah, why of course: C-x 0 (delete-window) issued when there is only one
window, should reveal the next best buffer.

Why? Because when the user types C-x 0, he is saying "get out of my
face", and emacs should do what he means. Indeed, it should be just
like he hit C-x b RET, picking the default buffer prompted with.
(I say don't prompt him on C-x 0, but you could if you insist.)

And don't bury the old buffer, just move it one down in the list.

Currently C-x 0 gives
"Attempt to delete minibuffer or sole ordinary window"

I am only discussing "sole ordinary window". As far as deleting the
minibuffer, that should still be illegal.

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: 461-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#461: delete-window means "get out of my face" even for sole
	window
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 14:32:56 -0400

I don't see a need to keep open this particular report, which was marked
"wontfix" some time ago.

Stefan Monnier wrote:

> There's already "C-x b RET", "C-x <right>", "C-x <left>" and probably
> several other ways to do what you want, so I see no need to change
> C-x 0 in the way you suggest.
>
> C-x 0 currently doesn't care about buffers, only about windows, so your
> "extension" doesn't seem very natural to me.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.