[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Modernize frame-title-format: "%b - GNU Emacs"
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: Modernize frame-title-format: "%b - GNU Emacs" |
Date: |
Mon, 31 Aug 2020 07:53:37 -0700 (PDT) |
> > (abbreviate-file-name buffer-file-name)
>
> The display engine calls the function which produces the frame's title
> very frequently. You have just made redisplay much slower due to this
> call (abbreviate-file-name is a large and complex function, and you
> call Lisp on top of that), and caused most redisplay cycles prfoduce
> more garbage. Is it really worth it?
Aside from whether it's worth the performance hit,
what is it worth, in general?
I wouldn't object to someone adding the possibility
of a `%B' behavior, even if I might never use it.
But why would we put that into the default?
I can guess why someone might want to use
`abbreviate-file-name', to get a file name in the
mode-line or frame title - to get info about the
directory. But I doubt I ever would.
If there's a need for someone to see the directory
then fine, s?he can add it to the frame title.
But the NONdirectory part of `buffer-file-name' is
the most specific part. And that part is used for
the buffer name, which we have with `%b'. The
nondir part should come before (to the left of)
the dir part, at least for the default.
If there's ever a need to see some directory info,
then it would be better to use a uniquified buffer
name than `abbreviate-file-name'. That is, use a
`uniquify-buffer-name-style' other than `forward'.
And `buffer-name' already gives us this behavior.
To be clear, what's the motivation for adding a
`%B' behavior? (But a priori I have no objection.)
More importantly, what's the motivation for using
it for the default behavior?
- RE: Modernize frame-title-format: "%b - GNU Emacs", (continued)