Hi Prot,

I am using beframe with the consult-buffer integration that you mention in the manual. I noticed that, when using it,
the first buffer in the list is the current buffer, which contradicts the behaviour of `beframe-switch-buffer', which itself
mimics `switch-to-buffer''s behaviour by placing the buffer returned by `other-buffer' at the top of the list.

I suggest that the default behaviour look like this instead:

┌────
│ (defun beframe-buffer-sort-other (buffers)
│   "Sort BUFFERS by placing the most recently selected buffer first.
│ 
│ Return a sequence that first lists the result of `other-buffer', then the other
│ buffers.
│ 
│ This function can be used as the :sort key of
│ beframe-buffer-list or beframe-buffer-names."
│   (let ((bufs (seq-group-by
│                (lambda (buf)
│                  (if (eq buf (other-buffer))
│                      :other
│                    :rest))
│                buffers)))
│     (nconc (alist-get :other bufs)
│            (alist-get :rest bufs))))
│ 
│ (defun beframe-buffer-names-other (&optional frame)
│   "Call `beframe-buffer-names' with `beframe-buffer-sort-other' as the sort key."
│   (beframe-buffer-names frame :sort #'beframe-buffer-sort-other))
└────

What do you think?

Take care,

Edgar

> From: Edgar Vincent <e-v@posteo.net>
> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 14:13:48 +0000
>
> Hi Prot,

Hello Edgar,

> I am using beframe with the consult-buffer integration that you
> mention in the manual. I noticed that, when using it, the first buffer
> in the list is the current buffer, which contradicts the behaviour of
> `beframe-switch-buffer', which itself mimics `switch-to-buffer''s
> behaviour by placing the buffer returned by `other-buffer' at the top
> of the list.
>
> I suggest that the default behaviour look like this instead:
>
> ┌────
> │ (defun beframe-buffer-sort-other (buffers)
> │   "Sort BUFFERS by placing the most recently selected buffer first.
> │ 
> │ Return a sequence that first lists the result of `other-buffer', then the other
> │ buffers.
> │ 
> │ This function can be used as the :sort key of
> │ beframe-buffer-list or beframe-buffer-names."
> │   (let ((bufs (seq-group-by
> │                (lambda (buf)
> │                  (if (eq buf (other-buffer))
> │                      :other
> │                    :rest))
> │                buffers)))
> │     (nconc (alist-get :other bufs)
> │            (alist-get :rest bufs))))
> │ 
> │ (defun beframe-buffer-names-other (&optional frame)
> │   "Call `beframe-buffer-names' with `beframe-buffer-sort-other' as the sort key."
> │   (beframe-buffer-names frame :sort #'beframe-buffer-sort-other))
> └────
>
> What do you think?

This makes sense to me though I don't know/remember the specifics of how
Consult handles sorting.  I add Tony Zorman in CC.  Tony introduced the
relevant feature and may have an opinion about it:
<https://lists.sr.ht/~protesilaos/general-issues/%3C87edq4n3qt.fsf%40hyperspace%3E>.

All the best,
Prot

-- 
Protesilaos Stavrou
https://protesilaos.com

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 26 2023 09:29, Protesilaos Stavrou wrote:
>> From: Edgar Vincent <e-v@posteo.net>
>
>> I am using beframe with the consult-buffer integration that you
>> mention in the manual. I noticed that, when using it, the first buffer
>> in the list is the current buffer, which contradicts the behaviour of
>> `beframe-switch-buffer', which itself mimics `switch-to-buffer''s
>> behaviour by placing the buffer returned by `other-buffer' at the top
>> of the list.
>>
>> I suggest that the default behaviour look like this instead:
>>
>> […]
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> This makes sense to me though I don't know/remember the specifics of how
> Consult handles sorting.  I add Tony Zorman in CC.  Tony introduced the
> relevant feature and may have an opinion about it:
> <https://lists.sr.ht/~protesilaos/general-issues/%3C87edq4n3qt.fsf%40hyperspace%3E>.

maybe I'm misreading this, but to me it sounds like Edgar is exactly
talking about the functionality that was implemented in that patch. At
least, the commit mimics what `consult--buffer-sort-visibility' does for
consult, which seems to produce the desired behaviour.

@Edgar: maybe you missed it in the manual (or use an older version of
beframe), but `beframe-buffer-names' can take a sorting function, like
this:

    (defun my/beframe-items (&optional frame)
      (beframe-buffer-names frame :sort #'beframe-buffer-sort-visibility))

In the consult integration, `my/beframe-items' can now be used in place
of `beframe-buffer-names':

    (defvar beframe-consult-source
      `( :name     "Frame-specific buffers (current frame)"
         :narrow   ?F
         :category buffer
         :face     beframe-buffer
         :history  beframe-history
         :items    ,#'my/beframe-items        ; <- HERE
         :action   ,#'switch-to-buffer
         :state    ,#'consult--buffer-state))

I've used this for a while now, and the current buffer is indeed pushed
to the very back of the buffer list.

Maybe this helps; if not, feel free to yell at me for having
misunderstood you :)

Best,
  Tony

-- 
Tony Zorman | https://tony-zorman.com/

Tony Zorman <soliditsallgood@mailbox.org> writes:

> Hi,

Hello Tony,

> maybe I'm misreading this, but to me it sounds like Edgar is exactly
> talking about the functionality that was implemented in that patch. At
> least, the commit mimics what `consult–buffer-sort-visibility' does for
> consult, which seems to produce the desired behaviour.
>
> @Edgar: maybe you missed it in the manual (or use an older version of
> beframe), but `beframe-buffer-names' can take a sorting function, like
> this:
>
>     (defun my/beframe-items (&optional frame)
>       (beframe-buffer-names frame :sort #'beframe-buffer-sort-visibility))
>
> In the consult integration, `my/beframe-items' can now be used in place
> of `beframe-buffer-names':
>
>     (defvar beframe-consult-source
>       `( :name     "Frame-specific buffers (current frame)"
>          :narrow   ?F
>          :category buffer
>          :face     beframe-buffer
>          :history  beframe-history
>          :items    ,#'my/beframe-items        ; <- HERE
>          :action   ,#'switch-to-buffer
>          :state    ,#'consult–buffer-state))
>
> I've used this for a while now, and the current buffer is indeed pushed
> to the very back of the buffer list.

You are quite right. I had noticed the sorting function, and actually defined a new one
in my original message. However, I had misunderstood the purpose of `beframe-buffer-sort-visibility'.
Its behaviour is indeed very much like the one I described.

Prot, might I suggest that the behaviour described by Tony become the default? For the moment, when using the snippet from
the manual, the first candidate is the current buffer, which I don't think anyone would find useful – especially
given that it does not mimic `beframe-switch-buffer'.

> Maybe this helps; if not, feel free to yell at me for having
> misunderstood you :)
>
> Best,
>   Tony

Thanks again for your reply, Tony.

Edgar