Re: strange generate-new-buffer-name behaviour

[Ken Raeburn]

On Dec 11, 2010, at 17:53, Alin Soare wrote:

>           (generate-new-buffer-name "foo")
>                => "foo<5>"
>           (generate-new-buffer-name "foo" "foo<3>")
>                => "foo<3>"
>           (generate-new-buffer-name "foo" "foo<6>")
>                => "foo<5>"
>
> However, for me all these forms evaluate to "foo"

This might be obvious, but: Do you actually have existing buffers named "foo", "foo<2>", "foo<3>", and "foo<4>" as described in the paragraph before that example code?

I did not create the buffers with the given names.

Then that explains why you're getting different results.  The function gives you back "foo" if that buffer doesn't exist, or finds a number to append so that it doesn't match the name of an existing buffer.  The text before the example explains how it assumes some of those buffers already exist.

Ken