bug#37840: Missing in the Emacs manuals:

[martin rudalics]

> The patch does not do the job. With the customization from my
> previous mail, start Emacs, open, say, foo.tex, and then do
> occur->some text. In the frame with the occur buffer, do bury
> buffer, so that the frame with the occur-buffer becomes iconified,
> so everything is good up to now. But then, doing bury buffer in the
> frame displaying foo.tex, the message-buffer displays in that frame,
> then doing again bury-buffer in that frame, the occur-buffer shows
> up, again in the frame originally intended for foo.tex, that is in
> the wrong frame, i.e., not as intended with the display-buffer-alist
> customization.

If you want to keep the occur-buffer in an iconified frame, you have
to customize 'switch-to-buffer-skip-visible' to 0 or t in order to
avoid switching to it automatically in another window.  When I do that
here, 'bury-buffer' switches between foo.tex, *scratch* and *Messages*
only.

> Would it not be better to adopt a more radical approach? Say that
> there are two basic defaults between which a user can choose: one as
> it is now, and a second one where there is a strict one-to-one
> correspondence between buffers and frames (i.e., in the terminology
> of Emacs, with no “windows” at all). Given the second basis default,
> the user could then customize whether for some buffer-types he/she
> wants to have them displayed in windows, or, depending on the
> buffer-type, customize geometry, fonts etc. of frames.

I suppose that by customizing 'switch-to-buffer-skip-visible' to t and
using a 'display-buffer-alist' that always makes a new dedicated frame
that becomes invisible when it gets buried, you can largely achieve
that.  The only problems should result from internal Emacs functions
that by default try to reuse or split the selected window.  I'm quite
sure that nothing can be done in this regard anyway.

martin