[ESS] GNU Emacs, ESS and point

[Richard M. Heiberger]

Interesting.  I think you are asking for a behavior that I have and don't want.
I will often have two copies of *R* open.  When they are in the same frame,
entering a command jumps both to the end of the buffer.  In a
different frame, the *R* buffer does stay where I put it.

For me the whole point of multiple views is to keep one stable for reference
while working in the other.  Therefore what I would like is for the view I am
typing in to move to the end and the other one to stay where it was.

Rich



On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Sparapani, Rodney <rsparapa at mcw.edu> wrote:
> I am resurrecting this old thread since I still see the same behavior in
> Emacs 24.3.  But, I am only going to focus on the first bug/feature.
>
> On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 17:53 +0000, Sparapani, Rodney wrote:
>>   >> Rodney Sparapani <rsparapa <at> mcw.edu>
>>   >> on Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:26:27 -0500 wrote:
>>
>>   > On 03/05/2012 01:12 PM, Rodney Sparapani wrote:
>>   >>
>>   >> Ok, here is something that I don't understand. When you have
>>   >> a file opened in different frames, GNU Emacs doesn't remember
>>   >> point. I can see how this sort of makes sense (although, XEmacs
>>   >> somehow does it better; I'm not sure where this setting is). Someone
>>   >> must have dealt with this smartly on the GNU side, right? If you have
>>   >> a big file open (and a big file benefits the most from this
>>   >> multiple view scenario so this is pretty common), is there
>>   >> any way to smartly manage point? This type of point management
>>   >> is sort of what we have created in ess-revert-wisely. But,
>>   >> what if you don't want to revert? Thanks
>>   >>
>
>> If I understand correctly what you want is a separate point is different buffers
>> of the same file, right? Then this is what you are after:
>>
>> M-x make-indirect-buffer RET
>>
>> >From the (elisp)Indirect Buffers:
>>
>>
>>    An "indirect buffer" shares the text of some other buffer, which is
>>    called the "base buffer" of the indirect buffer.  In some ways it is
>>    the analogue, for buffers, of a symbolic link among files.  The base
>>    buffer may not itself be an indirect buffer.
>>
>>       The text of the indirect buffer is always identical to the text of
>>    its base buffer; changes made by editing either one are visible
>>    immediately in the other.  This includes the text properties as well as
>>    the characters themselves.
>>
>>       In all other respects, the indirect buffer and its base buffer are
>>    completely separate.  They have different names, independent values of
>>    point, independent narrowing, independent markers and overlays (though
>>    inserting or deleting text in either buffer relocates the markers and
>>    overlays for both), independent major modes, and independent
>>    buffer-local variable bindings.
>>
>> Best,
>> Vitalie.
>>
>
> Hi Vitalie:
>
> I see what you mean.  For example, it would make no sense if I split a
> buffer with C-x 2 or 3 and insisted on the point being the same.  But,
> I am not talking about a split buffer.  I'm talking about situations
> where you just happen to have the same .sas, .log or .lst file open in
> two different buffers that have not been split/ediff-ed/whatever
> usually on two different frames (maybe multiple frames is the
> important detail).  Then I do want the same point always.  Now, I can
> see this might not be the easiest thing to implement since the
> splitting/ediffing/etc. may need to be "remembered" or the framing needs
> to be kept track of.  However, XEmacs seems to do it smartly.  Any ideas?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rodney
>
> ______________________________________________
> ESS-help at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/ess-help