Do you mean order everything by time when displaying the buffers in buffer-list and buffer-choose? Or do you mean order everything by time in all cases, so that paste_get_top refers to the most recent buffer, even if it is !automatic?
If it's the former, that sounds fine. If it's the latter, that would mean running delete-buffer without args would delete the top buffer, even if it is !automatic. I think that's fine since the user is still requesting the buffer be deleted (it isn't being aged away automatically). I'm not sure that renaming a buffer should change its order, though. The order field seems akin to a file's mtime, and that doesn't change during a rename. I'm in favor of ordering it all by time. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Nicholas Marriott <nicholas.marri...@gmail.com> wrote: > This has a couple more changes to fix some of these issues: > > - Make paste_rename silently replace any existing buffer. Also change > paste_set to call paste_free_name to remove an existing buffer or > it'll inherit stuff it doesn't want to. > > - paste_get_top and paste_free_top now ignore !automatic buffers. > > This makes it pretty consistent but I'm still not convinced we shouldn't > just order the whole lot by time... will people want to rename the top > buffer and still be able to immediately paste it with C-b ]? Or will > they only rename and then use it by name with C-b P or whatever? > > What do you think? > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity • Requirements for releasing software faster • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce _______________________________________________ tmux-users mailing list tmux-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tmux-users
