Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

can't open the same buffer in a second frame

2 views
Skip to first unread message

ken

unread,
Dec 5, 2017, 4:30:50 PM12/5/17
to help-gn...@gnu.org
It used to be nice that I could open the same buffer in a second frame
(aka window).  Sometimes I need to edit the same file in three or four
places and it's necessary to have all of them showing at the same
time... and for other reasons.  But I tried doing "C-x 5 b" and also
"C-x 5 f" yesterday and couldn't do it either way.  I could open a
different (not currently open file or buffer), but couldn't open the
same one.  It worked years ago. Why take away perfectly good and useful
functionality?  More importantly, how do I get it back?



Dale Snell

unread,
Dec 5, 2017, 5:12:22 PM12/5/17
to help-gn...@gnu.org
I tried this here, and both "C-x 5 b" and "C-x 5 f" worked just
fine, though they both wanted me to specify the filename. "C-x 5 2"
opened a new frame and automatically displayed the buffer from
the previous frame.

I suspect that there is something in your ~/.emacs.el
configuration that is causing this. Best thing to do is do
a binary search of your configuration. I.e., comment out half of
the config and save it. Run emacs and see if the problem has gone
away. If not, comment out half of the remaining config and try
again. If it has gone away, un-comment the section you just
commented and try again. Rinse and repeat until you've found the
errant config.

Hope this helps.

--Dale

--
“Always do right -- this will gratify some and astonish the rest.”
-- Mark Twain (1835-1910)

to...@tuxteam.de

unread,
Dec 5, 2017, 6:01:23 PM12/5/17
to help-gn...@gnu.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:50:29PM -0800, Dale Snell wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 16:30:31 -0500, in message
> 9df860de-de40-773c...@mousecar.com, ken wrote:
>
> > It used to be nice that I could open the same buffer in a second
> > frame (aka window). [...]

> I tried this here, and both "C-x 5 b" and "C-x 5 f" worked just
> fine, though they both wanted me to specify the filename. "C-x 5 2"
> opened a new frame and automatically displayed the buffer from
> the previous frame.
>
> I suspect that there is something in your ~/.emacs.el
> configuration that is causing this. Best thing to do is do
> a binary search of your configuration.

Perhaps try first with "emacs -Q" to sidestep your whole local
config.

Cheers
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlonJSQACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYT4QCeO7wb+4xtnJEG/TzA1wQybif0
z58AmwVgJrKLOINHn6zZk4eOvnwms3/x
=p/8R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Emanuel Berg

unread,
Dec 5, 2017, 10:34:44 PM12/5/17
to
ken wrote:

> It used to be nice that I could open the same
> buffer in a second frame (aka window). 

(defun other-window-or-split ()
(interactive)
(when (= 1 (count-windows)) (split-window-vertically))
(other-window 1) )

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

ken

unread,
Dec 6, 2017, 1:25:57 PM12/6/17
to GNU Emacs List
On 12/05/2017 04:50 PM, Dale Snell wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 16:30:31 -0500, in message
> 9df860de-de40-773c...@mousecar.com, ken wrote:
>
>> It used to be nice that I could open the same buffer in a second
>> frame (aka window). Sometimes I need to edit the same file in three
>> or four places and it's necessary to have all of them showing at the
>> same time... and for other reasons. But I tried doing "C-x 5 b" and
>> also "C-x 5 f" yesterday and couldn't do it either way. I could open
>> a different (not currently open file or buffer), but couldn't open
>> the same one. It worked years ago. Why take away perfectly good and
>> useful functionality? More importantly, how do I get it back?
>
> I tried this here, and both "C-x 5 b" and "C-x 5 f" worked just
> fine, though they both wanted me to specify the filename. "C-x 5 2"
> opened a new frame and automatically displayed the buffer from
> the previous frame.

"C-x 5 2" worked... didn't know about it, and it actually does what I
need more directly and efficiently.  Thanks.


0 new messages