Hello Tim, Tim Ramsey <[email protected]> wrote: > I mainly wanted to make some observations about the buffer numbers and > ordering. It seems this thread is highlighting the tension between wanting > to have a dynamic buffer ordering (both spatial and temporal) and a static > ordering. There are probably many pros and cons to each point-of-view. The > main reason I see for a static ordering is so that you can bind a key as a > shortcut to the static buffer position as a short-cut to that buffer. This > strikes me a somewhat fragile. Even if the buffer ordering were static there > is still the issue of deleting the buffers thus trashing the buffer ordering > and messing up any key bindings that may have been dependent on that order.
I use the buffer numbers in tabs and the short jumps via the keys 1 to 0, too. [1] But I often use them to quickly switch to a buffer in the neighborhood and seldom for long jumps, e.g. from buffer 20 to 7. [1] http://conkeror.org/Tips#BindNumberKeystoSwitchtoBuffers1-10 That's also for me a reason to use tabs: I want to have a quick overview of the neighborhood of the current buffer. The difference to Emacs according this quick overview is that I don't have so much buffers open in Emacs as in Conkeror and I don't switch between buffers so often as in Conkeror. Hence, the situation of buffers, their ordering and their handling is different from Emacs. Therefore, I thought about having relative tab numbers. Currently, I often use the prefix command to jump to the last/next but one buffer. With relative tab numbers, I could quickly see in the tab bar where's the buffer I want and hit, e.g., 4 for the last but one buffer or 8 for the next by two buffer. Assigning the keys should be pretty easy, but updating the numbers with each buffer switch seams to be more difficult. > I (humbly) propose that a better solution is one that I have been using for > about six months now. That solution involves explicitly naming buffers and > binding keys to go to those named buffers. For lack of imagination I have > called this "single buffer jump". I have included the code from my > .conkerorrc file below, but in a nutshell it is pretty straightforward. I > create a mapping between a name and buffer (with URL). I then define some > functions that allow me to either switch to the named buffer or, if it does > not exists, open the URL in a new (named) buffer. This has two very nice > properties. 1) I can bind keys to the named buffer, and 2) I do not have to > worry whether or not I have a named buffer open already, if it is open I go > there otherwise I create it. Do you know that you can narrow the buffer list for switch buffer (C-x b) by typing some snippets from the buffer URL or buffert title? This way you can quickly switch to a buffer with a (virtual) name without assigning (static) names to buffers. Bye, Jörg. -- Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand. _______________________________________________ Conkeror mailing list [email protected] https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/conkeror
