Re: [jed-users] wrong default when using ctrl-X ctrl-B

["John E. Davis" <jed@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bernhard Seckinger <bernhard.seckinger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That Ctrl-X Ctrl-B discussion reminds me on something odd which sometimes
> happens: A typical use case is to use it to switch to an other buffer (to look
> something up) and than switch back to the original buffer using Ctrl-X Ctrl-B
> Return. Most of the time this works, but sometimes jed catches the wrong
> buffer when I want to switch back.

  Just to clarify, are you referring to the `list_buffers` function
  (bound to Ctrl-X Ctrl-B), or to the `switch_to_buffer` function
  (Ctrl-X B)?  From your description, it sounds like you are referring
  to the latter.  In that case, jed is presenting you with a default
  buffer that you feel could be better chosen, right?  Or are you
  saying that jed presents you with a default, but then does not
  switch to it when you accept the default.  That would be a bug.

  A better function than `list_buffers` to bind to, say Ctrl-X Ctrl-B,
  is `bufed`.  This is like `list_buffers` except it allows you to
  more easily select a buffer to edit.

Thanks,
--John

>
> I never wrote here something, because I tried to find a reproducable example,
> which I unfortunately never managed. But I've got collected some observations:
>
> a) It only happens when there are a lot of buffers.
>
> b) It seems to happen more often, when you switch between buffers with
> different modes. E.g. from a java buffer to a postscript buffer and than
> back. In that case, jed seems to prefere an other postscript buffer instead of
> the java buffer.
>
> c) Whenever this happens, the desired buffer seems to be the last in the list.
> That is, when I switch to the wrong buffer and kill it another wrong buffer is
> suggested next until I killed all wrong buffers.
>
> d) Whenever it happens, best one can do is to close jed and restart. It seems,
> once jed has started this strange behaviour, it's burned in somehow - if you
> know, what I mean. (I'm not 100% sure of this, maybe killing all buffers and
> loading new might also work; it's normally just faster to restart.)
>
> Did anyone of you encounter this too? Are there any ideas what I could do?
>
> Regards,
> Berni
>
> --
> Bernhard Seckinger <bernhard.seckinger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> _______________________________________________
> For list information, visit <http://jedsoft.org/jed/mailinglists.html>.
>
_______________________________________________
For list information, visit <http://jedsoft.org/jed/mailinglists.html>.