Definitely display-buffer-alist for me. I was using purpose-mode for the longest time but I think I finally managed to get display-buffer-alist working mostly how I want.
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2025
15 points (100.0% liked)
Emacs
2304 readers
45 users here now
Our infinitely powerful editor.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Where the hell is the "meta" key and why does every command tutorial online talk about it.
Remnant of the type of keyboard that Emacs was developed on. Also the same place that the Super, Hyper, and Compose keys originate from
You can map it through your X server/Wayland compositor, but if not Emacs recognizes Alt and Esc as valid meta keys
It took me a while to think in lisp.
Thame.
I also moved from evil mode to meow a year or so back, which was sort of a big change for me:
Yeah, clearly the emacs concept of windows is older (or they'd be called panes or something)
Keyboard macros.
keyboard macros are so good, and using consult to go through old ones is great UX.
I can never remember the kmacro ring commands so I used to just redo everything.
Oh, I agree. I just never remember to use them until I'm done and realize I could have used a macro.
You don't usually split buffers, maybe windows?
ah yes an oopsie on my end :p
isn't it Frames in Emacs context?
not that i use or need it often, but terminology is (obviously) not that easy
Frame (what the window manager calls Window)>Window>Buffer. These are probably concepts that come from a text based terminal age.
Frames are the outer-most container for windows. I may be wrong on this, but there is 1 frame per instance of emacs, or emacs-client
Now I'm curious whether the emacs concept of frames is older than the desktop environment concept of a window... And what exactly a new frame means in a tui environment. I make new frames all the time, but I'm usually in a GUI environment.
Emacs is from 1975 I think? So it's very possible 🙂
@crmsnbleyd
Do/undo/redo as a non-linear construct broke my brain more than a little. Even after all this time it's still somewhat cryptic. Packages like `vundo' have been indispensable for visualizing the decidedly non-linear, non-circular, zig-zag of previous do, undo, and redo.
i just use undo-fu, maybe I should try using the vanilla undo
@crmsnbleyd
I tend to use undo-fu more often for sure. Typically the simpler word processor style of managing things is all I need, and for code there's version control.
Honestly I'd say if you're happy with undo-fu there's no real reason to go back. Unless you're curious and want to explore, which I'd never discourage either!