From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#7865: Bug in display-buffer-reuse-frames [was Re: bug#7865: 24.0.50; doc of display-buffer-reuse-frames] Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:04:30 +0100 Message-ID: <4D598ACE.4000507@gmx.at> References: <7505A1C76F6C42E4A27159D548366974@us.oracle.com> <87aai1x8lf.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4D57E530.1080101@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1297714003 31408 80.91.229.12 (14 Feb 2011 20:06:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:06:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 7865@debbugs.gnu.org, Chong Yidong To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 14 21:06:38 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pp4gs-0000Wu-Cb for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:06:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39378 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pp4gr-00029Y-PL for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:06:33 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44917 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pp4gm-000298-D9 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:06:29 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pp4gl-0000LQ-BI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:06:28 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:60857) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pp4gl-0000L7-6I for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:06:27 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pp4Wf-0006Xn-Or; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:56:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:56:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 7865 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 7865-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B7865.129771334025129 (code B ref 7865); Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:56:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 7865) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2011 19:55:40 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pp4WK-0006XG-By for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:55:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pp4WH-0006X2-Tr for 7865@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:55:39 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2011 20:04:34 -0000 Original-Received: from 62-47-59-246.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.59.246]) [62.47.59.246] by mail.gmx.net (mp071) with SMTP; 14 Feb 2011 21:04:34 +0100 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/P8Y99WYbP4dDTer0y2lhczymSMC48Dba4PccEDK wvoVVi5qgg9T0F User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:56:01 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:44121 Archived-At: >> I suppose you mean "if `display-buffer-reuse-frames' is nil and >> `pop-up-frames' is t" in the first sentence above. In that case I'd >> agree. > > I'm confused here. Which case are we talking about, which behavior is > not desired, and which alternative behavior would you(plural) prefer? When a buffer is already displayed, `display-buffer-reuse-frames' is nil and `pop-up-frames' is non-nil, `display-buffer' reuses a window. So if you set the default of `display-buffer-reuse-frames' to t as someone proposed, customizing `display-buffer-reuse-frames' will have no effect when `pop-up-frames' is non-nil. I don't know whether this is desired or not and I don't care about the alternatives because `pop-up-frames' is nil here. I guess that `display-buffer-reuse-frames' was invented for something like the following use case: - The user has `pop-up-frames' nil. - An application binds `pop-up-frames' to non-nil and pops up a buffer in a new frame. - The user returns to her old frame and eventually does something like `pop-to-buffer' on that buffer which should get her to the new frame. This means that setting `display-buffer-reuse-frames' to t makes sense iff `pop-up-frames' is nil and the scenario I described above does not apply, usually. It's still confusing in my opinion, though. martin