Re: binding ibuffer to C-x C-b by default

[David Kastrup]

Deniz Dogan <address@hidden> writes:

> 2010/10/8 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>> Deniz Dogan <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> 2010/10/7 Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden>:
>>>>
>>>> This was discussed briefly a few years ago and Stefan (and other
>>>> people) agreed with it: how about we map ibuffer to C-x C-b by default
>>>> in Emacs-24?
>>>>
>>>> ibuffer is a superset of list-buffers, and it provides many things
>>>> that list-buffers does not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If a significant majority of experienced Emacs users prefer to use
>>> ibuffer instead of list-buffers (which is what I believe) what is the
>>> problem with making this change?
>>
>> Thinking like a suitor rather than a programmer.
>>
>> Making a choice between two different feature sets that both have
>> deficiencies is the wrong thing to do if we can instead create a version
>> that does not contain the particular weaknesses of either.
>>
>
> Binding C-x C-b only changes a key binding.

And marriage only changes a soul binding.

> This has nothing to do with modifying list-buffers or ibuffer, neither
> does it affect anyone with the intentions of doing that.

You propose a divorce from C-x C-b with list-buffers, and a remarriage
with ibuffer.  Namely making a choice rather than an improvement to
either.

-- 
David Kastrup