Re: position on changing defaults?

[paul r]

2008/3/7, Richard Stallman <address@hidden>:

> I have never tried iswitchb.  What incompatible changes would I notice
>  if this change were made?

You will be able to chose the buffer you want to go to in a
find-as-you-type way. I find the benefit of it real, because :
 - there is no need to hit the * to go to *Message*
 - there is no need to hit S-M for the capital M in *Message*
 - you might want to go to a buffer that you can not remember
precisely how its name begins, but know a slice of its name : enter
the slice until you see the correct name appear

Basically, it makes one need buffer-list less often, therefore
"increase productivity".
But as Stefan said, all that is a matter of improving the completion
mechanism of switch-to-buffer.

What will maybe annoy you using it is how to choose, in the list of
buffers matching your entry, the one you really want. In a purely
incremental search like in switch-to-buffer, there is no need of such
a mechanism because names are completed up to ambiguity, and
desambiguity is made be entering a few more caracters. In iswichb, if
you have opened buffers "first-foobar" and "second-foobar" and you
enter "foobar", there is ambiguity. Iswitchb provides C-s and C-r to
move forward and backward in the list of matching buffers. I personaly
find this last design choice counter-intuitive, and I think it could
be improved. But all the rest is very valuable.