From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#49057: 28.0.50; windmove-display-in-direction ignores windmove-display-no-select Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 22:10:02 +0300 Organization: LINKOV.NET Message-ID: <87tulv57jn.fsf@mail.linkov.net> References: <20210616064248.mqqzlt7qyxwqrcfy.ref@Ergus> <20210616064248.mqqzlt7qyxwqrcfy@Ergus> <87fsxitdmt.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <20210616121632.k365bes37rs5m6sl@Ergus> <87mtrpjtkm.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87sg1gp8qf.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <18ae47f5-cf21-571f-f73a-43492ee90f62@gmx.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="19368"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Cc: 49057@debbugs.gnu.org, Ergus To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 18 21:20:15 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1luK2I-0004pK-0N for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 21:20:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54168 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1luK2B-0008TA-Ow for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:20:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56484) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1luJzC-0005i3-RV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:17:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:46702) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1luJzC-0001hA-In for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:17:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1luJzC-0001Zr-Ft for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:17:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Juri Linkov Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:17:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 49057 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: fixed Original-Received: via spool by 49057-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B49057.16240437905997 (code B ref 49057); Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:17:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 49057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Jun 2021 19:16:30 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58244 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1luJyf-0001Yf-T2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:16:30 -0400 Original-Received: from relay11.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.178.231]:39697) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1luJye-0001YQ-GB for 49057@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:16:29 -0400 Original-Received: (Authenticated sender: juri@linkov.net) by relay11.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 33B02100004; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:16:20 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <18ae47f5-cf21-571f-f73a-43492ee90f62@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Fri, 18 Jun 2021 09:33:40 +0200") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:208705 Archived-At: >> But wouldn't this be too confusing for users, when users will call >> `pop-to-buffer' with the new alist entry 'select', and it still will select >> the unintended window as `pop-to-buffer' currently does? > > `pop-to-buffer' has to select the window chosen by `display-buffer' > regardless of whether `display-buffer' selected it or not. Do we > violate this principle anywhere? The basic difference I'd propose is to > have `pop-to-buffer' bind > > (display-buffer-overriding-action '(nil ((select . t)))) > > around the `display-buffer' call and so `display-buffer' will select the > chosen window regardless of any user customizations. Then other commands should take care to not override display-buffer-overriding-action. Do you intend to rewrite commands that currently use switch-to-buffer-other-window (such as Buffer-menu-other-window and dired-find-file-other-window) to use `display-buffer' with '(nil ((select . t)))? Probably not because switch-to-buffer-other-window already uses pop-to-buffer. Then maybe you want to rewrite commands that currently use `display-buffer' with ACTION=t (such as Buffer-menu-switch-other-window and dired-display-file) to use `display-buffer' with '(nil ((select . nil))) instead?