From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" 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: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 06:35:17 -0800 Message-ID: <5B37BCBE31884508A650136BB3362D0A@us.oracle.com> References: <7505A1C76F6C42E4A27159D548366974@us.oracle.com> <87aai1x8lf.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1297607794 5976 80.91.229.12 (13 Feb 2011 14:36:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:36:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 7865@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'Chong Yidong'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 13 15:36:30 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 1Pod3u-00035d-3T for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 15:36:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51454 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pod3t-0003uF-Fl for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:36:29 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=48850 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pod3o-0003ty-1r for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:36:25 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pod3m-0004f1-Rj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:36:23 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:37301) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pod3m-0004ev-OF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:36:22 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pocuj-0005CI-Rm; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:27:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:27:01 +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=B7865.129760720719958 (code B ref 7865); Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:27:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 7865) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Feb 2011 14:26:47 +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 1PocuT-0005Bq-Oc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:26:46 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PocuQ-0005Bd-U7 for 7865@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:26:44 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p1DEZZDQ004291 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:35:37 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p1DDkCWX030084; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:35:34 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt021.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 1001825781297607724; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 06:35:24 -0800 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.59.59) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 06:35:23 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <87aai1x8lf.fsf@stupidchicken.com> Thread-Index: AcvK+UhehMkbj8c7RN2uGzA3BlBoFwAjch7w X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090207.4D57EC37.00AE:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:27:01 -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:44098 Archived-At: > > This option is used in only `display-buffer', in a test that is > > essentially (or pop-up-frames display-buffer-reuse-frames ...) > > > > That means that this option has no effect if `pop-up-frames' is > > non-nil. > > I think this is actually a bug. Doing `C-x b' with non-nil > display-buffer-reuse-frames should make Emacs raise another frame if > it;s already displaying the desired buffer---regardless of > the value of pop-up-frames. No, it should not. That would flagrantly contradict the intention of `pop-up-frames', as well as its longstanding and documented behavior. > Currently, if display-buffer-reuse-frames and pop-up-frames > are both t, `C-x b' instead displays the buffer in the > existing frame. So `pop-up-frames' has changed the behavior, > even though it's not doing any "popping up" in this case. No, no, no. There is no bug other than the doc bug I filed. You say that `pop-up-frames' has changed the behavior? On the contrary, if you were to make the change you suggest then `display-buffer-reuse-frames' would be changing the behavior specified (and realized since Day One) by `pop-up-frames' - and that would be the case regardless of the value of `display-buffer-reuse-frames'! `pop-up-frames' should not be affected by `display-buffer-reuse-frames': `pop-up-frames' is already specifying the reuse of frames. >From (elisp) Choosing Window: "[`pop-up-frames'] specifies whether `display-buffer' should make new frames." Likewise, the first line of its doc string: "Whether `display-buffer' should make a separate frame." That's exactly what `pop-up-frames' does: specify when to reuse a frame vs make a new frame. `display-buffer-reuse-frames' was created later to do something similar but without ever creating a new frame. `pop-up-frames' has been around a lot longer than `display-buffer-reuse-frames', so it cannot be said to change the behavior of the latter. The definition of `pop-up-frames' is clear about reusing frames. Again, from (elisp) Choosing Window: "If [`pop-up-frames'] is non-`nil', `display-buffer' looks for a window already displaying BUFFER-OR-NAME on any visible or iconified frame. If it finds such a window, it makes that window's frame visible and raises it if necessary, and returns the window. Otherwise it makes a new frame..." Please reread the whole bug report. In particular: "`pop-up-frames' determines the behavior even if `display-buffer-reuse-frames' is non-nil - its description should come first." The behavior of `pop-up-frames' is correct (and longstanding). The behavior of `display-buffer-reuse-frames' is correct also. In particular, it is correct that it _has no effect_ if `pop-up-frames' is non-nil. What needs fixing is the doc (only). (And it is not too kosher to simply change the subject line and thus "reuse" (hijack) the bug number.)