From: kyu <kyu@...>
Date: 2005-04-30T02:19:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Emacs vs. VI vs. IDE

Yohanes Santoso wrote:

>kyu <kyu@console-pimps.org> writes:
>
>  
>
>>One feature i find vi/nvi/vim/whatever is lacking is the ability to
>>have an interactive shell inside a buffer, i can be in
>>one xemacs session, and C-X2-C-Xo m-x shell and i have a command
>>    
>>
>
>That's scary. Try this instead:
>
>(defvar ys::eshell-wins nil)
>(global-set-key "\C-cs" (lambda (win-num)
>			  (interactive "p")
>			  (message "win-num %s" win-num)
>			  (let ((assoc-buffer (cdr (assoc win-num ys::eshell-wins))))
>			    (if (not (buffer-live-p assoc-buffer))
>				(progn ; the requested buffer not there 
>				  (setq assoc-buffer (eshell t))
>				  (setq ys::eshell-wins (assq-delete-all win-num ys::eshell-wins))
>				  (add-to-list 'ys::eshell-wins (cons win-num assoc-buffer))))
>			    (switch-to-buffer assoc-buffer)
>			    (rename-buffer (concat "*eshell-" (int-to-string win-num) "*"))
>			    assoc-buffer)))
>
>
>To open shell #1: C-1 C-c s   or if your environment doesn't transmit
>C-<number> (like from a putty session), then use M-1 C-c s    or   the traditional  C-u 1 C-c s 
>
>Shell #2: C-2 C-c s or M-2 C-c s or C-u 2 C-c s
>
>and so on.
>
>YS.
>
>
>  
>
That's 1000000000000x better, thanks! :)