Re: Documentation for "Clone Buffers" (corrected version)

[Alex Schroeder]

Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:

> I think a(n easy) method of opening a second *info* buffer is a Good
> Thing.  Perhaps M-n `clone-buffer' isn't the most elegant command around,
> but it's got to be better than M-x rename-uniquely etc., from a user's
> point of view.

Heh.  :)  Many have complained about similar functionality in M-x
shell, for example (and written code where M-x shell starts *another*
shell instead of switching to the existing shell buffer).  Inspired by
the M-x shell interface, other code behaves similarly: M-x
sql-something switches to the existing SQL buffer instead of creating
a new one.  M-x ielm does the same.  Etc.

What I'm trying to say is that yes, the interface is not elegant.
But it seems that both variants are equally unpopular, so we just
need to pick one, stick to it, and make a generic solution the
problem for all these instances.  Renaming the buffer before calling
the function again was deemed to be good enough a long while back (I
guess because we were not sure that using a prefix was better or
possible at all).

I'm sure that some users will be glad if you can devise a generic
and elegant solution to this usability problem.  :)

Alex.
-- 
.O.  http://www.emacswiki.org/alex/
..O  Schroeder's fourth law:
OOO  None of your friends and coworkers share your taste in music.