Re: display-buffer-overriding-action

[Chong Yidong]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> former is not a problem: C-x 5 b passes an ACTION argument to
>> pop-to-buffer, which takes precedence over d-b-alist.
>
> No, the ACTION argument takes precedence over d-b-default-action but not
> over d-b-alist.

I meant d-b-default-action there.

>> The display-buffer action functions aren't told what the original
>> arguments to display-buffer were, so it can't know whether
>> display-buffer was called for `C-x 5 b' or `C-x 4 b', or another
>> command entirely.
>
> C-x 5 b would not do
>
>   (display-buffer BUFFER <some-clever-action)
> but
>   (let ((d-b-overriding-action <some-clever-action>))
>     (display-buffer BUFFER))

In your scheme, under what circumstances would *any* Lisp caller of
display-buffer use the ACTION argument?

As far as I can see, every Lisp caller falls into one of two cases:

- "Generic" calls to display-buffer or pop-to-buffer, which don't intend
   to second guess Emacs defaults and/or user settings.

- Commands like `C-x 5 b' or `info-other-window', which fall under the
  "explicit command" criterion and should override the defaults.

Your rationale for not using the ACTION argument is to allow a third
case, wherein the Lisp caller wants to specify some behavior that can be
overridden by the user.  I contend that Lisp callers should almost never
do that: as far as possible, they should use a `bare' display-buffer or
pop-to-buffer call.  In that case, it's conceptually cleaner to handle
the second case by letting those callers use the ACTION argument.

Do you have any specific counterexamples in mind?