Re: Message buffer names

[John Morris <2e0byo@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 13:12:26 +0200, David Maus wrote:
> They don't clutter the buffer-list. Using the subject might get
> complicated if you've read an entire thread -- it will be hard to
> select the right buffer even if it contains the subject.

That makes sense

> Maybe you could utilize ibuffer? Something like:
> 
> https://gist.github.com/dmj/722f217b060ad36acae5

Looks interesting.  I already use fer as I have far too many
buffers up at any one time; this looks good.

> Hm. Or maybe even better: Utilize registers.

I did not know that!  Very useful, I already use set-mark and
jump-to-mark all the time.  Thankyou very much -- an excellent
feature.

John
> 
> HTH,
>   -- David
> 
> > John
> > 
> > On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:22:30 +0200, Greg Bognar wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > When I read an email in WL, I have at least three buffers open: Folder,
> > > Summary, and the buffer that contains the message.  But when I do C-x C-b,
> > > only Folder and Summary are listed.  The message itself is in a hidden 
> > > buffer whose name is something like _*WL:Message*-281649 (where the _ is
> > > space).
> > > 
> > > I don't see the point of this behavior.  In fact, I often work with multiple
> > > messages, and I want them to be listed and available for buffer switching.
> > > Ideally, the message buffer should be called something like Message: <subject>.
> > > I don't see why this should cause any problems -- in the worst case, you
> > > would have to close manually the buffer of a message that has been deleted
> > > in the Summary buffer.
> > > 
> > > Is there a good reason for making the message buffer hidden?  Is there a way
> > > to set the name of the message buffer to something that Emacs doesn't hide?
> > > Even better, can the buffer name be constructed from, e.g., the subject?
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Greg
> > > 
> > 
>