From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6204: vc-dir always splits the frame Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 00:04:30 -0400 Message-ID: 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> <4BFC099E.2000404@gmx.at> <4BFCDC3A.3000300@gmx.at> <4BFD3580.8080804@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1274934461 13815 80.91.229.12 (27 May 2010 04:27:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 04:27:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 6204@debbugs.gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu May 27 06:27:39 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 1OHUh1-0002Go-2X for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 May 2010 06:27:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48317 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OHUh0-0007Ls-Hm for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 May 2010 00:27:38 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33328 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OHUgn-0007KH-Qp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2010 00:27:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHUgl-0003LF-Ob for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2010 00:27:25 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:34728) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHUgl-0003LB-M8 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2010 00:27:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHUL8-000654-Bm; Thu, 27 May 2010 00:05:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 04:05:02 +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=B6204.127493307923366 (code B ref 6204); Thu, 27 May 2010 04:05:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6204) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 May 2010 04:04:39 +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 1OHUKk-00064p-PF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2010 00:04:38 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183] helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHUKj-00064k-06 for 6204@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2010 00:04:37 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAIaM/UtLd+tS/2dsb2JhbACeJXLAMIUTBIxE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,308,1272859200"; d="scan'208";a="65565305" Original-Received: from 75-119-235-82.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([75.119.235.82]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP; 27 May 2010 00:04:33 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 540FF80E5; Thu, 27 May 2010 00:04:30 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <4BFD3580.8080804@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Wed, 26 May 2010 16:51:44 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 00:05:02 -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:37321 Archived-At: >> No, the application's choice should prevail because it's more specific. > I thought the idea was that an application can override a user's > customizations iff it explicitly states that. Yes and the users can still do that with special-display-regexps. But pop-up-frames and pop-up-windows are really very vague global preferences, whereas an application going through to trouble of specifying default-params has decided that it usually deserves special treatment. > So should `pop-up-windows' be considered a "weaker" option than > `special-display-regexps' wrt the argument of `display-buffer'? Very much so, yes, since it's only a boolean value and applies to all display-buffer calls, it's very non-discerning and carries very little information about the user's preferences. Some of the intention behind the `default-params' would be to get rid of calls to switch-to-buffer (replaced by calls to pop-to-buffer with a same-window default-param). Such cases already disregard pop-up-windows and pop-up-frames, so ignoring them w.r.t default-params would be consistent with such a case. Stefan