[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-dat
From: |
Robert J. Chassell |
Subject: |
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date) |
Date: |
Sun, 21 Apr 2002 17:08:16 +0000 (UTC) |
... "buffer" to "document" or "file" ...
Please be careful about language.
Sometimes a buffer is an unsaved document; sometimes it is a saved
document. There is a big difference. And sometimes a document is
not online at all, but is printed.
And ..., right now, in another buffer, I am looking at a picture,
I would not call a picture a document, although a picture may be
within a document, but not always. In this case, the picture is not
within a document.
How about extracting idea from this in your definition of `buffer'?
Thexe excerpts come from Info, File: eintr, Node: Buffer Names
A file and a buffer are two different entities. A file is
information recorded permanently in the computer (unless you
delete it). A buffer, on the other hand, is information inside of
Emacs that will vanish at the end of the editing session (or when
you kill the buffer). Usually, a buffer contains information that
you have copied from a file; we say the buffer is "visiting" that
file. This copy is what you work on and modify. Changes to the
buffer do not change the file, until you save the buffer. When
you save the buffer, the buffer is copied to the file and is thus
saved permanently.
...
In spite of the distinction between files and buffers, you will
often find that people refer to a file when they mean a buffer and
vice-versa. Indeed, most people say, "I am editing a file,"
rather than saying, "I am editing a buffer which I will soon save
to a file." It is almost always clear from context what people
mean. When dealing with computer programs, however, it is
important to keep the distinction in mind, since the computer is
not as smart as a person.
The word `buffer', by the way, comes from the meaning of the
word as a cushion that deadens the force of a collision. In early
computers, a buffer cushioned the interaction between files and
the computer's central processing unit. The drums or tapes that
held a file and the central processing unit were pieces of
equipment that were very different from each other, working at
their own speeds, in spurts. The buffer made it possible for them
to work together effectively. Eventually, the buffer grew from
being an intermediary, a temporary holding place, to being the
place where work is done. This transformation is rather like that
of a small seaport that grew into a great city: once it was merely
the place where cargo was warehoused temporarily before being
loaded onto ships; then it became a business and cultural center
in its own right.
Not all buffers are associated with files. For example, when
you start an Emacs session by typing the command `emacs' alone,
without naming any files, Emacs will start with the `*scratch*'
buffer on the screen. This buffer is not visiting any file.
Similarly, a `*Help*' buffer is not associated with any file.
--
Robert J. Chassell address@hidden
Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), (continued)
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Terje Bless, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2002/04/21
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Michael Toomim, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2002/04/21
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Terje Bless, 2002/04/21
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2002/04/21
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date),
Robert J. Chassell <=
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2002/04/21
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Terje Bless, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Serge Wroclawski, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Brady Montz, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Matt Tucker, 2002/04/20
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Richard Stallman, 2002/04/20