Re: The window-pub branch

[grischka <grishka@gmx.de>]

martin rudalics wrote:
> So why do you think it's gone?  You can define
> 
> (defun display-buffer-in-other-window-on-same-frame (buffer specifiers)
>   (display-buffer
>    "*scratch*"
>    '(same-frame (reuse-buffer-window . nil) (not-this-window . t))))
> 
> and put this into `display-buffer-names' or `display-buffer-regexps' or
> write
> 
> (display-buffer "*scratch*" 'display-buffer-in-other-window-on-same-frame)

I don't want display "*scratch*".  I want
    (setq display-buffer-regexps '(((".*") my-display-buffer)))
;-)

>  > Also, is it possible to route any other functions that effect to
>  > displaying a buffer (such as switch-to-buffer) through display-buffer
>  > exclusively?
> 
> With the exception of `switch-to-buffer' all these route now through
> `display-buffer'.  I could add an option to have `switch-to-buffer'
 > route through `display-buffer' as well.

One exception is still an exception.  Why do you need it?

Also, what method does your code use to display "*compilation*"?
It doesn't seem to like my-display-buffer.

> `set-window-buffer' can't be rewritten, for obvious reasons.

Why not? You could rename the current low-level one to
"set-window-buffer-internal".

> 
>  > Also, is it possible to have same logic to "un-display" (hide) a
>  > buffer, such that delete-buffer and bury-buffer are routed through
>  > that, also exclusively? And then to have a hook too, such as
>  > "hide-buffer-function"?
> 
> Hiding a buffer is done by `replace-buffer-in-windows' which is called
> by `kill-buffer' (I suppose you mean that by "delete-buffer").  I don't
> understand the semantics of `bury-buffer' well enough.  What would you
> want to put on that hook?

Obviously some code to replace a buffer in its window(s) rsp. delete
the window(s).

>  > And yes, that would be to bypass all the interesting logic you just
>  > designed and to replace it with something completely different. ;)
> 
> IIUC only your first issue fits into this remark.  The routing issue you
> raised goes into the opposite direction, I presume.  

No, same direction.  Obviously only what is routed through the same
function can be catched by a single hook in that function.

> And the "hiding"
> logic was redesigned (confer `switch-to-prev-buffer') but it's only
> loosely connected to buffer display proper.

IMO strongly symmetrically related.

So, is it possible to hook 'switch-to-prev-buffer' in order to catch
buffer "undisplay", with no exception?

Also, while we're at it: I think I want hooks for "select-window",
"set-window-buffer" and finally "split-window", too.

> 
> martin
>