From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8936: 24.0.50; Incompatible change in the meaning of "other window" Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:42:06 -0400 Message-ID: References: <19974.24793.979873.787090@rgr.rgrjr.com> <4E06FBEA.6010202@gmx.at> <4E07221C.9060704@gmx.at> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1309092260 5797 80.91.229.12 (26 Jun 2011 12:44:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:44:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 8936@debbugs.gnu.org, rogers-emacs@rgrjr.dyndns.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 26 14:44:15 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QaohD-0004ZC-Ou for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:44:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36261 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QaohC-0008KA-Tc for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:44:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59803) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qaog4-0008A3-Vc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:43:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qaog3-00070h-CY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:43:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:37877) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qaog3-00070d-12 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:43:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qaog2-0003Kq-4x; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:43:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:43:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8936 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 8936-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8936.130909213912771 (code B ref 8936); Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:43:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8936) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Jun 2011 12:42:19 +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 1QaofK-0003Jw-Ro for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:42:19 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QaofE-0003Jd-LR for 8936@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:42:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qaof8-0008Nq-TN; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:42:06 -0400 In-reply-to: <4E07221C.9060704@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:12:12 +0200) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:43:02 -0400 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: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:47498 Archived-At: > Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:12:12 +0200 > From: martin rudalics > CC: rogers-emacs@rgrjr.dyndns.org, 8936@debbugs.gnu.org > > > What could possibly prevent Emacs from splitting the current window in > > two? Only dimensions, or are there other reasons? > > With emacs -Q it's only the dimensions. I would consider making the another-frame behavior an option, then. I think I would be more surprised to see a new frame than to have the same window reused, if my current frame is so tiny. YMMV, of course (and I do see the rationale behind your design decision).