On 6/9/05, Nic Ferrier <nferrier@taps...> wrote:
> Something that would help a great deal is if one could create a buffer
> that was hidden, ie: it did not ordinarily appear in the buffer list
> and was not returned by a call to:
> (get-buffer buffername)
The goal of not annoying users is served well enough by the
leading-space convention, and there's ample support for creating
unique buffers; why do you need a truly anonymous buffer?