Re: How to get rid of *GNU Emacs* buffer on start-up?

[Kevin Rodgers]

Xah Lee wrote:
> On Sep 24, 12:35 am, Kevin Rodgers <kevin.d.rodg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Kevin Rodgers wrote:
> > Nikolaj Schumacher's recent message prompted me to check that little
> > hack, and I see that it's got a typo.  It should be:
> >
> > (defun switch-to-new-buffer ()
> >    "Switch to a new *scratch* buffer."
> >    (interactive)
> >    (switch-to-buffer (generate-new-buffer "*scratch*"))
> >    (setq buffer-offer-save t))
> >
> > You might like (auto-save-mode 1) in there as well.
>
> A new buffer is not a existing buffer, so the switch in the name is
> unfit. Also, since the function's purpose is creating a new *scratch*,
> you should have that in the name to reflect the fact.

In Emacs, you can create a buffer without making it the current buffer
and/or without displaying it.  Emacs uses the verb "switch" to mean
"display the buffer and select the window in which it is displayed".

> So, given your code, one step of improvement is to change the name to
> new-scratch-buffer or create-scratch-buffer.

Fair enough: switch-to-new-scratch-buffer.

> But, as i detailed, since scratch is simply a new buffer, and since
> now you can create multiple scratches, it ceases to be one special
> buffer emacs called *scratch*.

The *scratch* buffer _is_ special: If you kill it, it is regenerated,
and its major mode is determined by initial-major-mode.  No other buffer
respects that variable.

In contrast, the major mode of the new *scratch*<N> buffers is
determined by default-major-mode.

> So, this comes back to my original
> suggestion, that it might simply be better to just have create-new-
> buffer. And, if you agree this far, then since you now have a
> mechanism to create new buffers proper, and the few emacs developers
> agree that *scratch* has problems albeit minor one, we might simply at
> this point get rid of the *scratch* because create-new-buffer
> completely covers its functionality.

I do not agree that it would be better to eliminate the *scratch* buffer
in deference to a create-new-buffer command.  I do not know which Emacs
developers think *scratch* has problems, or what those alleged problems
are.

You can pry the *scratch* buffer from my cold, dead fingers.  :-)

> This is exactly what is proposed in my article, alone with code.
> See
> http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization_scratch_buffer.html

--
Kevin Rodgers
Denver, Colorado, USA