[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge |
Date: |
Wed, 18 Dec 2024 16:12:56 +0200 |
> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 11:05:55 +0100
> Cc: nicolas.despres@gmail.com, juri@linkov.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>
>
> > It could be both. But I firmly object to make this be customizable
> > _only_ through display-buffer action alists, because that is even less
> > user-friendly than function values of defcustoms.
>
> If we make this and other display buffer options a defcustom too, we'd
> have to specify the semantics of that defcustom. In particular:
To clarify: I was talking only about this particular toggle, not about
"other display-buffer options". The difference is that those other
options already exist, so removing or redesigning them is not easy at
best, and thus probably isn't worth our while.
> - Should the defcustom hold for any buffer to be displayed?
>
> - Should it override what the calling program specifies in the ALIST
> argument.
>
> - Would a 'display-buffer-alist' entry override it?
>
> Once these have been resolved, we can easily add defcustoms for most
> options that are currently only available via 'display-buffer-alist'.
I don't necessarily see how the above questions are relevant to the
issue at hand. AFAIU, the OP asked for a capability to tell Emacs to
split horizontally first instead of vertically. My interpretation of
that is that this desire is global, for all the use cases. So a
single global option seems appropriate, and my personal answer to the
above questions would be YES to the first one at least. As for the
other two: can display-buffer-alist specify the splitting behavior
this today? If not, I don't see why we should forcibly introduce such
a possibility, which will then require us to consider who can override
whom. If display-buffer-alist cannot specify splitting, then the
problem with overriding doesn't exist.
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, (continued)
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/12/16
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, Juri Linkov, 2024/12/16
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/12/16
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, Nicolas Desprès, 2024/12/17
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, Juri Linkov, 2024/12/17
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, Nicolas Desprès, 2024/12/17
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, martin rudalics, 2024/12/17
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, Nicolas Desprès, 2024/12/17
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/12/17
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, martin rudalics, 2024/12/18
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, martin rudalics, 2024/12/18
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/12/18
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, martin rudalics, 2024/12/18
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/12/18
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, martin rudalics, 2024/12/18
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, Juri Linkov, 2024/12/19
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, Juri Linkov, 2024/12/18
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, Nicolas Desprès, 2024/12/17
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/12/17
- Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/12/17