> But your suggestion is a trash-inside-the-trash, I don't think it's > usefull.
A bit different I think. Keeping output datum in separated buffers makes easier to browse per process output. Especially if C-x C-b is implemented. From this view point, tla--dead-process-buffer-queue is better than *tla-trash*. In other hand *tla-trash* helps the users avoiding to create too many buffers. A kind of safety-net. > > Now the queue is managed by the length. > > How do you think use timer instead of timer? > > More complex to implement for a little benefit only, but no objection > if you want to implement it. I agree with "a little benefit". However it will be help when a user creates many buffers at a time. Combining queue length + timer approach is better. More about UI. In *tla-process* buffer, keys for following functions will be useful. tla-process-remove-buffer-from-dead-process-buffer-queue tla-process-switch-to-parent-buffer parent-buffer menas the buffer from where the process is launched. It will be nice if the parent-buffer name is appeared on the process-buffer's modeline. Masatake YAMATO
