From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tino Calancha Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#24086: 25.1.50; ibuffer-do-view-1 fails to visit in new frame Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 22:52:05 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: References: <83eg6froxn.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1469714005 5557 80.91.229.3 (28 Jul 2016 13:53:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:53:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Tino Calancha , 24086@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 28 15:53:15 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bSlkQ-0000pd-Ii for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 15:53:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53507 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bSlkP-0004ha-VW for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:53:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56806) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bSlkK-0004gn-7q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:53:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bSlkE-0005eQ-Or for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:53:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:51663) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bSlkE-0005eM-LH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:53:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bSlkE-0006a2-FU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:53:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Tino Calancha Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:53:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 24086 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 24086-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B24086.146971393625239 (code B ref 24086); Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:53:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 24086) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Jul 2016 13:52:16 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48960 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bSljU-0006Z0-DI for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:52:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.220.54]:33287) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bSljS-0006Yo-Sc for 24086@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:52:15 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ks6so21422086pab.0 for <24086@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 06:52:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references :user-agent:mime-version; bh=Gk51unEGT147Iv8cJCNftLpVvfXQEUaw+Tytn9kq0Lw=; b=GFzl+keHkuXI9xfysqaCkQJQX5NPthyvNa3TA9BeuXJm9XgMwem0BGrQI1NLJY74LF ETJMKOUgAd3sUOJ8qIc1b8aTVKZhsD7nugAG3ZBUqIf4UMsz54Ud/mb11U32J8s3p2SB un9bg0xRJSEUdXTerWz/psjVqa70/O1Jr+Ck+41ldcbTJm9mRxsliVyrtu2EDGphNnX6 QaQJWuqW/DurhbYOyKSAhs521D+ZP09mrI7OBRyvWBaet8nRhWZpzyH/GlPydvpAJWGS Uy7o/yOly8O4zu+JExM0FBg2XhHBQx8CxUcWm+I9pHnq5OVNyw8Iqw/795SKjh+mgi8L Xj7g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version; bh=Gk51unEGT147Iv8cJCNftLpVvfXQEUaw+Tytn9kq0Lw=; b=aY8Vczj+DuKQYefiyi1i0RBis6K2+vlg7MRvU6TTL/pU0WCvmkiLVq8VmQFeG6PSLT KtfNawG5l8d5qoOEvqszUkGp2xSeeY59BKRTokCmO6jrS6pr3XdAYwbUvvSYwoGjwiOE 0Luggxf+d7LLI51U1gNS3M3yUB/eyCKR+U1YH4o2sqgWyA27kSidM7mJDqpOed+Whc17 g5enMIA5MaLftxpQ1KVdn7CVh8SHPTMr+WiJKgJALpgDwA0BiGyJZRpzCRWorA1++3wa S1YZRkttZELw7Iet2RrIzqBcKHHGEX5fz96G5LcLxkCIVzI/h7XRpgj9F8IxVQTT4l91 Ov/g== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouuhjZAzqEsMkFq8XsWTVe+dHsNOhhO2YtYRTOy+Q4IHUTYw+xXn4sj2Be1g6wswjA== X-Received: by 10.66.181.16 with SMTP id ds16mr59671941pac.102.1469713928867; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 06:52:08 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from calancha-pc ([210.160.37.23]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id wa9sm17399601pac.35.2016.07.28.06.52.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Jul 2016 06:52:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Original-From: Tino Calancha X-X-Sender: calancha@calancha-pc In-Reply-To: <83eg6froxn.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:121618 Archived-At: On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Tino Calancha >> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 20:32:40 +0900 (JST) >> >> When the argument TYPE is 'other-frame, it should visit >> the buffer in a new frame. > > Not unconditionally, though. There are clearly some conditions in the > code under which the above should not happen. Exactly. I wrote that sentence thinking on 'ibuffer-do-view-other-frame'; i realize the bug while calling this command. > Does the change have to be this complicated? AFAICT, the error is > just in the wrong logic of combining the conditions. Right? Well, maybe someone more skillful could come with something fancier :-) The reason why my patch looks bigger that one could expect is because: 1) I understand better the logic written in my patch: it reads more explicit what the logic is doing, IMO. 2) It is also fixing the expected behaviour of 'ibuffer-do-view-other-frame'. The orig version of 'ibuffer-do-view-1', once 'unless' condition evaluates nil, pops to the first marked buffer in the selected window (regardless of the value of TYPE). Then, the rest of marked buffers are visited in a new frame if TYPE equals to 'other-frame. That's wrong: if TYPE equals 'other-frame, all marked buffers should be visited in a new frame. Otherwise, if you have just one marked buffer, and you call 'ibuffer-do-view-other-frame' (bound to H), Emacs visit this buffer in the same frame.