[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`
From: |
martin rudalics |
Subject: |
bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist` |
Date: |
Sun, 19 Nov 2023 11:35:06 +0100 |
>>> As `special-display-buffer-names` and friends are nearing the 10 years
>>> of being declared obsolete, I noticed that I can't find any replacement
>>> for the `same-frame` parameter in `display-buffer-alist`.
>> IIRC 'same-frame' had no clear semantics.
>
> In `special-display-*`?
All 'same-frame' did was to inhibit calling 'special-display-function'
via
(let* ((pop-up-frames nil) (pop-up-windows t)
special-display-regexps special-display-buffer-names
(window (display-buffer buffer)))
That never precluded using a window on another frame, contradicting the
very meaning of "same frame" and was always documented as
"Otherwise, if they include (same-frame . t), the buffer is displayed
in a new window in the currently selected frame."
which failed to say what happens if no new window could be created on
the selected frame. So historically 'same-frame' was always tied to
'special-display-*' and had no effect when that was uncustomized.
> Are you referring to whether it's OK to (re)use a window on another
> frame if it shows the buffer already?
(Re)use any window on another frame.
> Other than this, I don't see what was not clear about its semantics.
> And I can't see any reason why we couldn't clarify the semantics.
The action alist is flat - whichever entry comes first is used even if
it is not pertinent to the action chosen. If the action chosen is say
'display-buffer-in-previous-window', the frames to investigate are
currently specified by a 'reusable-frames' entry. If no such entry is
present, we could check for a 'same-frame' entry. But what should
'display-buffer' do when both entries are present with 'same-frame'
coming first? And how would 'display-buffer-use-some-window' and
'display-buffer-use-least-recent-window' handle the similar case with a
'lru-frames' and a 'same-frame' entry both present?
Now if you want 'same-frame' to prevail in either of these cases, it
will not suffice to rewrite the corresponding pieces of code where
another frame would be chosen. Any application that really needs a
window on another frame will then have to provide a (same-frame . nil)
entry.
If you want 'same-frame' to not prevail in these cases, you probably
mean that it should only inhibit popping up a new frame via
'display-buffer-pop-up-frame'. Again applications that want to pop up a
new frame would then have to provide a (same-frame . nil) entry.
>> As for a new window on the selected frame, use
>> 'display-buffer-pop-up-window'. As for any other window on the
>> selected frame, use either ‘display-buffer-use-some-window’ or
>> ‘display-buffer-use-least-recent-window’ with a nil 'lru-frames'
>> action alist entry.
>
> `same-frame` was not quite like any of those, it said "keep using the
> default set of options in the same order of preferences, except that if
> at all possible, skip those options which end up displaying the buffer
> in another frame".
The proof of this pudding is in clarifying the "if at all possible" and
explaining any new special behavior in the manual.
martin
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/17
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, martin rudalics, 2023/11/18
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/18
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`,
martin rudalics <=
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/19
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, martin rudalics, 2023/11/20
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/20
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, martin rudalics, 2023/11/21
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/21
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, martin rudalics, 2023/11/22
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/22
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, martin rudalics, 2023/11/23
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/23
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, martin rudalics, 2023/11/24