GNU bug report logs - #59502
29.0.50; [PATCH] Dedicated buffers per project

Previous Next

Full log

Message #44 received at 59502 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Cc: Gabriel <gabriel376 <at> hotmail.com>, 59502 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#59502: 29.0.50; [PATCH] Dedicated buffers per project
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2022 03:50:56 +0200

On 07/12/2022 09:50, Juri Linkov wrote:
>>> (setopt project-buffer-name-function
>>>     (lambda (project _command-symbol buffer-name)
>>>       (format "%s<%s>" buffer-name (project-name project))))
>> I think*prjname/Shell Command Output*  sounds nice enough.
>>
>> If it doesn't, we probably wouldn't choose*Shell Command Output*  as the
>> name for non-project buffers of this type, would we?
> For designing a naming scheme, I suggest to keep in mind that
> the users might already have customized the behavior for
> displaying these buffers by using display-buffer-alist
> that often takes into account a uniquified suffix, e.g.:
> 
>    "\\`\\*\\(?:Shell Command Output\\|xref\\|vc-dir\\|compilation\\)
>        \\*\\(?:<[^>]+>\\)?\\'"
> 
> So for compatibility it would be better to add the project name
> in the suffix without changing the standard base buffer names, e.g.:
> 
>    "*Shell Command Output*<project-a>", "*xref*<project-b>"
> 
> But if you want to add the project name after the first asterisk,
> this is easy to do as well with just:
> 
>    (setf (substring buffer-name 1 1) (project-name project))

The naming scheme is often affected by the uniquify package, and 
different people use different ordering. Should we really go there?

Previous Next

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