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#6204: vc-dir always splits the frame Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:33:24 -0700 Message-ID: <7496FB4D7A8745038D45428F0C3FB753@us.oracle.com> References: <4jwrv35d7a.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <878w7fa7cr.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <4BF504B4.50408@gmx.at> <4BF5736B.1030605@gmx.at> <4BF79ABA.7080006@gmx.at><87ljbbv4u4.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <87y6fbqtq2.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <4BF91C54.4070608@gmx.at> <4BF97C5B.409@gmx.at> <4BFBEE76.7000003@gmx.at> 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 1274813851 24031 80.91.229.12 (25 May 2010 18:57:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 18:57:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 6204@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'Stefan Monnier'" , "'martin rudalics'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 25 20:57:29 2010 connect(): No such file or directory 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 1OGzJg-0004rs-Mg for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 20:57:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45868 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OGzJg-0005NS-1g for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 14:57:28 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=56492 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OGzJY-0005LT-US for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 14:57:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OGzJX-0006ZJ-JA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 14:57:20 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:47058) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OGzJX-0006ZE-Hk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 14:57:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OGyx0-0007D7-4c; Tue, 25 May 2010 14:34:02 -0400 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: Tue, 25 May 2010 18:34:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6204 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 6204-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6204.127481243627711 (code B ref 6204); Tue, 25 May 2010 18:34:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6204) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 May 2010 18:33:56 +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 1OGywt-0007Cu-Ed for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 14:33:55 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OGywq-0007Cp-0w for 6204@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 14:33:54 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o4PIXgjV030196 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 25 May 2010 18:33:44 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o4PIXcDd022711; Tue, 25 May 2010 18:33:38 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt014.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 267075101274812404; Tue, 25 May 2010 11:33:24 -0700 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.64.168) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 25 May 2010 11:33:24 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acr8L6EakjuUwYBISeG/nO9VFARRcwABnkNg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-Source-IP: acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090208.4BFC1809.0012:SCFMA922111,ss=1,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 14:34:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:37276 Archived-At: > Rather than let-binding some Lisp-manipulated "config" var, I was > thinking of passing special parameters to display-buffer (I'd rather > avoid dynamic scoping whenever possible). I'm not following this thread[*], and I agree that using explicit parameters is usually better than using dynamic scoping. However, I do have a parenthetic comment. ;-) The downside to adding such parameters in a case where you modify existing functions (esp. if used heavily in existing code) is that it can make it harder for 3rd-party code to take advantage of the new feature and still work with older versions that do not have the new parameters. E.g. (let ((new-var ...)) ... (foo) ... (foo) ... (foo) ...) versus ... (if xxx (foo) (foo new-param)) ... (if xxx (foo) (foo new-param)) ... (if xxx (foo) (foo new-param)) ... In the former case, all that's needed is to add a `let' binding. And if there is already a `let', then _nothing_ changes in the code except adding one more binding. It is nearly always the case that the variables to be added are be specific to the function (`foo'), without conflict. IOW, dynamic scoping is foot-loose and fancy-free, error prone, and can even sometimes be dangerous. But it does have its advantages. --- * Why oh why do you insist on carrying on discussions of such general import as changing the signature of `display-buffer' in a bug thread instead of in emacs-devel? It happens over and over again now. Fundamental design-change discussion takes place buried in a bug thread with a Subject line that is unrelated. Not good. At the very least, once you've hashed out the choices for the bug fix, send a proposal for any design changes to emacs-devel for general discussion.