🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1adeseINNnig@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:

>>In the definition of insert-buffer in simple.el, I suggest replacing
>>  (interactive "*bInsert buffer: ")
>>with
>>  (interactive "*BInsert buffer: ")
>
>The interactive "B" code will allow you to specify a nonexistent buffer,
>which you don't want for insert-buffer.  You'll at least have to change the
>code for insert-buffer to check whether get-buffer returns a buffer or nil,
>so it can print an error if the user specifies a nonexistent buffer.


OK, this would be a reasonable change and also keep the changes
minimal.

Or, insert-buffer could be re-written in C instead of elisp.  Then the
default could be the previous buffer and nonexistent buffers could be
handled correctly.  The C programming for this is a little beyond me,
though.



>... the "b" code was designed for C-x b (switch-to-buffer)
>... while "B" was designed for C-x k (kill-buffer) ...
>... You can't change either one without screwing
>thousands of users who have been typing C-x k Return and C-x b Return for
>years.


I agree.  That's why I didn't suggest changing the "b" or "B" codes.
I would just like a more useful insert-buffer.  Changing the
interactive code was the easiest way I saw to do it.

Dave