#Emacs `list-buffers` bound by default to `C-x C-b` is horrific.
It opens the list in a different window.
Ok.
Even if it always takes me by surprise.
It leaves the point in the original location.
Why?
@al3x I think most people rebind it to their favorite emacs package for navigating buffers and probably don’t care what the default is. You can fight against the defaults but it’s a losing battle. The people who do like the defaults will fight change as if you are taking away their security blanket. Easier to configure it the way you like and forget about it. My opinion of course.
@al3x @ambihelical I also have C-x C-b bound to ibuffer, and I use filter-groups in ibuffer to handle having multiple areas to focus on every day.
But if you really want to use list-buffers and have the point jump to *Buffer List*, you could `advice-add' to list-buffers (pop-to-buffer "*Buffer List*")
something along the lines of:
(advice-add 'list-buffers :after (lambda (&optional arg) (pop-to-buffer "*Buffer List")))
note that I did not test this line of code because I don't use list-buffers!
@ambihelical @al3x The line of untested code is based on this line in my own config:
(advice-add 'pwd :before (lambda (&optional insert) "add pwd to kill ring" (kill-new default-directory)))
When I run `pwd', it's useful to have the path in the kill-ring so I can yank it if need be. The advice accomplishes that for me. One of many examples of small irritations that I lived with for a long time, and then decided to make them go away. #emacs is one of only two pieces of software that I use that has not suffered from "enshittification", and that it over DECADES of use!
@ambihelical Ah, no. 2 is a controversial opinion. For now, I'll just say that it's commercial software for data analysis, and, like #emacs, it hasn't suffered from enshitification in the 30+ years I've been using it.
@pmaohj I think I am not the only one who wants to know your opinion! If you use Emacs it can’t be bad. Others are handling data as well 😀
@baron42bba @ambihelical Ok, if you must know, it's Matlab (or GNU Octave, if you don't have a corporate overlord to buy you the good stuff). Maybe it's because I've used Eric Ludlam and Matt Wette's matlab-mode for almost the entire time. I know there are people who absolutely hate it, but for me, the respect given to the empty set and to complex numbers are truly wonderful aspects of the language and package.
sqrt(-1) is the most common example, but Matlab also handles log(-1) and acos(1.5) with aplomb. Numpy and most other packages I've encountered return NaN and complain bitterly.
When I need to append arrays in a loop, Matlab handles an empty array as I would expect it to, while in python's world, I have to write lots of special handling code.
Again, I realize it's a controversial opinion, but for me, it is one of the two that have never let me down.
@ambihelical Indeed.
Changing defaults is one of the hardest problems
if at all possible.
I am mostly, selfishly, thinking about my experience
and how it is affected by the defaults.
A suboptimal experience implies I need to put more effort
or it pushes me away.