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

[Stefan Monnier]

[ For the record: I'm the perpetrator of the FORK argument. ]

> 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).

The question I have is: what alternative is better.
I personally don't like the M-x rename-uniquely option too much because it
forces me to first find the-buffer-that-I-don't-want, then rename it, then
run the command I wanted to run in the first place.

The clone-buffer is a bit better in that I can just run the command and
afterwards just M-x clone-buffer, but it still brings up
the-buffer-that-I-don't-want which I might have to bury.

Maybe another generic solution would be a prefix arg which causes
a subsequent `get-buffer-create' (or somesuch) to not find the buffer it's
looking for.  I.e. after M-x magic-prefix RET calling (get-buffer-create
"*shell*") would look for *shell* and if it exists, it would rename it
uniquely, and then create a new *shell*.


        Stefan