Re: The window-pub branch

[martin rudalics]

> Then what about
>   (defun switch-to-buffer (b) (display-buffer b 'special))

This could be done.

>> `set-window-buffer' _is_ low-level.  Emacs needs some mechanism to
>> bypass whatever people do in `my-display-buffer'.
>
> Saying "Emacs" you insist on the absence of architecture.

Why?

> Maybe
> you agree that direct access of application code to functions such
> as 'split-window' and 'set-window-buffer' doesn't play well with
> any attempts to wrap them into more user-friendly behavior.

I agree.  Though there are occasions where an application wants to have
full control over the frame layout - gud and ediff, for example.

But why be user-friendly in the first place if users only need hooks for
calling their own functions instead ;-)

> Where a "wrapper" is a piece of code with exclusive access to the
> functionality that it wraps.  There must be no way to bypass the
> wrapper except for the wrapper itself.

It would only take a few seconds before someone asked for a way to
bypass such a wrapper programmatically.

>> There's no single entry point for "hiding a buffer".  The nearest
>> equivalent is probably `switch-to-prev-buffer'.  But sometimes the
>> window gets deleted before and in the worst case *scratch* must be
>> recreated to show some buffer in the window.
>
> I'm not interested in the details of existing bugs.  I'm only
> interested whether your new design is able to get past them.

This is not about a bug.  It's about what Emacs has to do in order to
prevent crashing.

>>...  It's hardly possible to tell whether a buffer
>> shown in a window was effectively put there by `display-buffer' or by
>> `set-window-buffer'.
>
> One more point for not allowing applications to mess with
> 'set-window-buffer' (and friends).

Demandons l'impossible.

>  "A feature called substructure redirect allows a window manager to
>   intercept any requests to map, move, resize, or change the border
>   width of windows. This allows the window manager to modify these
>   requests, if necessary, to ensure that they meet its window layout
>   policy."
>
> Which in other words means a single hook that is sufficient for
> everything a window-manager might want to do.

Doesn't `window-configuration-change-hook' get near to that?  Though it
seems to me that you want to put yourself into the window manager's seat
here.

martin