Re: frames dedicated to buffers, or, always see specific buffers in a specific frame

[martin rudalics]

>> `switch-to-buffer' uses `pop-to-buffer' to make sure the window
>> displaying the buffer is selected.  You use `display-buffer' which
>> doesn't necessarily make the window selected - IIUC you rely on the
>> window manager to select the window.
>
> yes, you understand correctly.

So for making this general purpose you should use `pop-to-buffer'
instead of `display-buffer'.

>> Other from that I don't see anything hackish with your approach if the
>> idea is to make `switch-to-buffer' do what you want when it's called
>> from other code (which ideally should not happen).  In this case you
>> might also want to advice `switch-to-buffer-other-window' accordingly.
>
> I do want that precisely. `display-buffer-alist' apparently allows me (a LOT 
of)
> control how `display-buffer' but not

... only, I presume ...

> when it is called. The advice is because I
> want ibuffer and ido to work with this as well.

These should refrain from using `switch-to-buffer(-...)' and use
`pop-to-buffer' with the `display-buffer-same-window' directive instead.
Wherever this bothers you, file a bug report so it gets fixed.

> The hackish part is was also that I call the predicate twice, but I can 
simplify
> that...
>
> (defadvice switch-to-buffer (around joaot/browse-buffer-maybe activate)
>   (if (joaot/browse-buffer-p buffer-or-name nil)
>       (let ((display-buffer-alist `(("" .
> (joaot/browse-buffer-in-special-frame . nil)))))
>         (display-buffer buffer-or-name))
>     ad-do-it))
>
> However, I still have to have to set `display-buffer-alist' globally for those
> functions who call `display-buffer' directly, like `describe-function' does 
for
> "*Help*" buffers, for example.
>
> (setq display-buffer-alist
>       `((joaot/browse-buffer-p . (joaot/browse-buffer-in-special-frame . 
nil))))
>
> I'm quite happy with this functionally, and find this feature is quite useful 
to
> keep focus on one frame, but be able to look at a secondary frame on a second
> monitor for reference and only switching to it occasionally.

I just don't understand whether you deliberately name buffers specially
to exploit this feature.  Couldn't you use some more human predicate for
this purpose?

> Ideally I would want anywthing with the meaning "switch to some buffer" (be it
> `pop-to-buffer', `switch-to-buffer-other-window`, `display-buffer`, etc...) to
> be be hookable at some common point, much as is already done with `display-
> buffer'.

This was the intention of `display-buffer-alist' and IIRC at some time I
had already removed all calls of `switch-to-buffer' from the Emacs code
base.  Somehow this got reverted later.

> Or alternatively, and maybe simpler, if `display-buffer' is so powerful, why
> can't it be used by `switch-to-buffer' and friends? I know `diplay-buffer''s
> semantics are "display without selecting", but can't those be relaxed and the
> "without selecting" part be just the default?

`switch-to-buffer' is the traditional means to interactively show a
buffer in the selected window.  It shouldn't be used in Lisp code.

> Another, distinct, small problem persists, and I suspect it has to do with not
> understanding what the various alists are in the documentation of
> `display-buffer'
> and `display-buffer-alist'...
>
> Specifically, how can I prevent `display-buffer' from stopping at one of
> the actions that I specify in `display-buffer-alist'? For example,
> `describe-function' shows me the buffer on the secondary "browse" frame" but
> still keeps the current pop-to-frame behaviour. I'm going to have a look at
> `display-buffer-overriding-alist', maybe that will do it.

This doesn't sound right.  When `display-buffer' has found a window it
should stop right there.  Anything else would constitute a bug.  If you
can reproduce it, step through it with the debugger to find out what
goes wrong.

martin