Skip to content

Conversation

@igorlfs
Copy link
Contributor

@igorlfs igorlfs commented Apr 9, 2025

Addresses #1470

I've been using this for a couple of weeks without any issues. But I've been holding back onto opening the PR because I don't think that's a long-term solution: adding variations to the switchbuf option is awkward.

You'd think that this would be the last one, but we can go further. For instance, the usetab value does not take into account if there's a window where the line is visible (akin to the usevisible option) within the same tab. Instead, with usetab, the first window that matches the buffer is always used, regardless of the line being visible elsewhere.

Thoughts?

@mfussenegger
Copy link
Owner

I'm also not sure where to draw the line here - currently I'm tending more towards simply allowing switchbuf to be a function and let users customize it as they see fit.

Also given issues like #1478
Accounting for all the different buftypes/layouts/behaviors that people might want seems to be a never ending story otherwise.

@igorlfs igorlfs force-pushed the feat/tabusevisible-switchbuf branch from 086acd5 to d37aff1 Compare September 19, 2025 03:28
@igorlfs igorlfs closed this Sep 19, 2025
mfussenegger pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 19, 2025
@igorlfs igorlfs deleted the feat/tabusevisible-switchbuf branch October 7, 2025 02:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants