Re: Buffer menu fix

[asdf]

Nick Roberts <address@hidden> writes:

>  > > With this patch header-line buttons in the buffer list buffer certainly
>  > > respond to Mouse-1 but unfortunately they do this even when
>  > > mouse-1-click-follows-link is nil.
>  > 
>  > This behavior is the same as Info-mode.  It makes sense because
>  > mouse-1 on the header line would not set point, as it would in the
>  > main editing area.
>
> Well it breaks the idiom of mouse-1-click-follows-link.
> (mouse-1-click-follows-link-except-for-Info-and-Buffer-menu ?).  If this is
> the desired behaviour perhaps a note could be added to the doc for
> mouse-1-click-follows-link.

Arguably, the mouse-1-click-follows-link (follow-link) idiom doesn't
apply here.  With the follow-link mechanism, if you hold down mouse-1
for about a second, it sets point where you clicked instead of
following the link.  This is not relevant here because you can't set
point on the header line.  (The Lisp code also wouldn't work --
setting just the 'follow-link property on a header line string does
nothing.)

>  > > because then the header line can then respond to mouse-1 clicks
>  > > and still be dragged (try it on the mode-line to see what I
>  > > mean).
>  > 
>  > You can drag it by clicking on any part of the header line outside the
>  > button text.  Again, this is the same as Info-mode.
>
> In that case I suggest that this is also changed in Info-mode.

Why? It is much more convenient to allow users to click on a link.  If
the user wants to move the header line (which is not something that
people do frequently, anyway), all she has to do is to move the mouse
two milimeters to the left, outside the button.  This is what people
are used to in all other graphical applications -- no one sees a
button and thinks, "Yeah, that's for resizing the window."

> Unlike follow-link, the tooltip shows the mouse-2 binding rather
> than mouse-1.

This is true.  (The tooltips in Info-mode also say mouse-2, by the
way.) I think they should be changed to say mouse-1, but could we get
a third opinion on this?