Amar Singh writes: >>Not yet, let's see. >> >>> - (mru-recall! buffer-stack buffer) >>> + (if recall? (mru-recall! buffer-stack buffer)) >> >>(please use `when' for an if without else clause). >> >>janneke > >>I don't think that's what we want, I'm imagining this helps you to >>achieve something so I'm curious what you want to do? > > We want to have commands like next-buffer, previous-buffer and > other-buffer with Emacs-like semantics.
Yes > Imagine we have buffers: > gnu.org 127.0.0.1 Messages > > buffer-next!: gnu.org 127.0.0.1 Messages (assume it moves through buffers in > this direction) > > then, > buffer-previous!: gnu.org Messages 127.0.0.1 > > but can you guess what happens when interactive versions of buffer-next! and > buffer-previous! are called? > > next-buffer: gnu.org 127.0.0.1 gnu.org (keeps cycling between the two) > prev-buffer: gnu.org Messages 127.0.0.1 Ah, that's not good. > this has to do with the fact that switch-to-buffer will call > mru-recall!. This behaviour of switch-to-buffer is unexpected and > should be optional i think. ...maybe or yes, but the default `switch-to-buffer' behaviour should still use that default, right? > but we may also want to have(Emacs-like other-buffer) > other-buffer: gnu.org 127.0.0.1 gnu.org > > other-buffer should look like something: (sry should have included this in > the patch as well) > > (mru-next! buffer-stack incr) > (switch-to-buffer (mru-ref buffer-stack) t) Ah, yes. That's mainly what I was missing, there was no user for the previous implementation. > wdyt? Sounds good, please update your patch. If you have a public Git, I can pull from there too. Greetings, janneke -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | AvatarĀ® http://AvatarAcademy.com