[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications
From: |
martin rudalics |
Subject: |
Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications |
Date: |
Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:55:58 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) |
>>>>> I'm not sure why you're so concerned about this reuse-window behavior of
>>>>> special-display-popup-frame.
>>>> Because I had some very hard time here discussing this with a user who
>>>> can't live with such behavior.
>>> And yet he wants to use dedicated frames? Can you give some more
>>> details, because that sounds pretty odd.
>> That person can't use `special-display-popup-frame' because it doesn't
>> work correctly on his system.
>
> Again, I don't know where in that thread he says that nor why.
The author said
> > The main reason I want to do all within the current frame is because
> > Emacs doesn't raise a hidden frame. On cygwin (I use it in the office)
> > and on Fedora 14 Linux (I use it in home), Emacs puts a newly created
> > frame on the top of the screen, but it doesn't for a frame that exists
> > but is hidden.
> >
> > As for Fedora 14, I use an external program called `wmctrl' to make
> > `raise-frame' work, but it has no effect on cygwin. Cf.
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2006-10/msg01117.html
> All I saw was requests to get back the Emacs-23 behavior (tho I don't
> really understand what was different there either).
The difference was that I interpreted `pop-up-frames' non-nil as the
user's agreement to reuse a window on another frame. The same
interpretation is implicit whenever a user adds a buffer to
`special-display-regexps' making `special-display-popup-frame' search
all visible frames.
>> Sure. But using the old code _as is_ is impossible if you want "to turn
>> the NOT-THIS-WINDOW into a SPECIFIER/RULE argument which could then make
>> same-window-* really obsolete".
>
> Maybe not absolutely "as is", but it should be possible to keep most of
> the code unchanged, I think.
For some value of "most".
>> It's just as if you wanted to reperesent one of those users who want
>> the old behavior back. What would happen in your setup if a frame
>> were not dedicated?
>
> It all depends, but when your code recently failed to mark windows as
> dedicated, I pretty quickly noticed it because I ended up accumulating
> lots of frames showing the same buffer (often a buffer I didn't even
> ask to see).
IIUC, dedicated frames make sense in one and only one constellation:
(1) `pop-up-frames' is nil.
(2) Not all windows get a special frame.
(3) You are in a special frame and a `display-buffer' for some other
buffer than the one shown there happens.
This is the only scenario I can think of that should cause troubles when
the frame of (3) is not dedicated. But the buffer shown instead should
be a buffer the user asked to see. So what you report above indicates
the existence of a bug elsewhere. As soon as you have the time please
look into this again and report such behavior.
> It'll take me a while to change my setup to avoid dedicating windows, so
> don't hold your breath,
There's one thing that won't work for you: `bury-buffer' doesn't iconify
the frame but deletes it. Iconification would need some extra work.
martin
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, (continued)
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, Stefan Monnier, 2011/08/05
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, martin rudalics, 2011/08/06
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, Stefan Monnier, 2011/08/07
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, Tim Cross, 2011/08/08
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, martin rudalics, 2011/08/08
- RE: display-buffer-alist simplifications, Drew Adams, 2011/08/08
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, Stefan Monnier, 2011/08/08
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications,
martin rudalics <=
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, Stefan Monnier, 2011/08/09
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, martin rudalics, 2011/08/10
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, Juri Linkov, 2011/08/05
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, Stefan Monnier, 2011/08/05
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, Juri Linkov, 2011/08/07
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, Stefan Monnier, 2011/08/07
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, Juri Linkov, 2011/08/08
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, Stefan Monnier, 2011/08/08
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, Juri Linkov, 2011/08/09
- Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications, Stefan Monnier, 2011/08/09