Re: [vile] Buffer name length

[Paul Fox]

thomas wrote:
 > On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Rick Sladkey wrote:
 > 
 > > Recently I have been using a modified version of NBUFN:
 > >
 > > #define NBUFN 21          /* # of bytes, buffername, incl. null*/
 > >
 > > I've set it to 41 and I can tell you it noticeably improves my editing
 > > experience.
 > >
 > > Now that some coding standards discourage arbitrary abbreviations and
 > > filenames in some languages correspond to class names, it is commonplace
 > > for filenames of source files not to differ within the first twenty
 > > characters of the name.  The problem is worsened by the buffer name
 > > being plainly visible on both the mode line and the title bar where there
 > > is plenty of room to display more information.
 > >
 > > Of course I can make this change each time I compile vile but I was
 > > wondering if the time had come to reconsider whether the value twenty is
 > > still appropriate as the default for all users?
 > 
 > possibly (I don't have a strong preference).  As implemented, it has to
 > be a fixed-size (more than a few lines of code refer to NBUFN).

the reason for keeping it short is to preserve real-estate in the
status line for the full file path.  on an 80 column display, 41
characters for the buffer name, plus a mode string, a [modified] tag,
doesn't leave much room.  and of course the "quick selection" menu
(from the '_' command) probably gets less useful.

but rick's right that "verylongbuffer-1", "verylongbuffer-2" gets
annoying.

paul
=---------------------
 paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 55.6 degrees)