I was vaguely aware of them but presumed they'd been added mostly for those who were more used to that UI convention: not something long-time users of Emacs might really need but Emacs (as usual) trying to accommodate all types of usage styles or preferences.
But, trying it out the other day briefly out of curiosity, I noticed that tabs could hold their own window configuration/layout (which, like, makes sense but hadn't dawned on me).
And I started thinking that I could use them in the same way I tend to use desktop workspaces: organizational buckets to put groups of windows in.
I've used registers to save particular window layouts but that has the added effect of, also, saving the point, as well (which, while I could keep saving to that register so I don't end up at a totally different portion of the file when I try to go to the layout, it's certainly less than ideal).
Tabs seem to keep track of your most recent buffer, per tab, – as well – so I can have each tab be their own little environment. I could open up Elfeed in one (along with all of the new buffers that might generate), a Magit buffer and various files from that repo. in another, and Wanderlust to check my E-mail in a third. And, whenever I switch to one, whatever other buffer I'd been working in before the current buffer of the tab is just a switch away because each tab keeps the correct buffer order of what was done in it.
Maybe this isn't new to anyone else but I rarely see people talk about tabs (other than brief, once-in-a-blue-moon mentions) but, while maybe not suitable for every person's workflow, this is yet another way the flexibility and power of Emacs just blows anything else out of the water, to me. It's such a useful iteration on the common UI structure.
Just wondering if anyone else uses them, found any pitfalls with them, etc. Mostly curious about people's experiences and if it's as infrequently used as my impression originally was.
In the end, it's all subjective but – if you'll hear me out –
thoghdoesn't alter the current spelling very much while maintaining a linguistic heritage (as the "thogh" spelling was also likewise used, during Middle English); also, the number of words ending in just the "o" vowel is less common, I feel, and will probably look doubly foreign to a native English speaker due to the consonant digraph (though, again, subjective; maybe not).However, – additionally – saving "oght" for "thought" is giving that letter combination a sound already covered in English by another letter combination: "aught" (e.g. caught, fraught, taught, …thaught…?). If we're keeping "ogh" around, we might as well give it a unique pronunciation association to avoid the overlap that was the original problem with "ough".
Finally, a single "f" for "tough" could work (certainly, there are examples) but we miss out on employing the Germanic linguistic tendency to indicate a short vowel sound with a double consonant, inherited by words such as "ball", "fall", "doll", "call", or "puff" (of course, there's plenty of exceptions ("get", "bet", "mat", etc.) but, so long as we're making changes, firming up an existing rule (and avoiding the brief uncertainty of whether or not the reader is dealing with a prefix) would, arguably, be useful).