From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Does display-buffer display the buffer or not? Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 18:57:02 +0100 Message-ID: <4D14DEEE.6030207@gmx.at> References: <87r5d7bn8s.fsf@member.fsf.org> <4D14688E.4090606@gmx.at> <8739pnbhce.fsf@member.fsf.org> <4D148054.9030704@gmx.at> <4D1488C5.7040006@gmx.at> <4D14B136.2050202@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1293213442 13974 80.91.229.12 (24 Dec 2010 17:57:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 17:57:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Tassilo Horn , Emacs-Devel devel To: Lennart Borgman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 24 18:57:18 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1PWBtF-0007DD-3N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 18:57:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50184 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PWBtE-0006NE-Md for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:57:16 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51774 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PWBt9-0006N7-GJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:57:12 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PWBt3-0001zT-NT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:57:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]:38556 helo=mail.gmx.net) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PWBt3-0001zA-Bs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:57:05 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Dec 2010 17:57:03 -0000 Original-Received: from 62-47-41-47.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.41.47]) [62.47.41.47] by mail.gmx.net (mp013) with SMTP; 24 Dec 2010 18:57:03 +0100 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18wFZMa2kow1aDgBIDzKW+Jpdd9DnB9ELWTQy1rcH FUPe/CcI5OhjB3 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:133956 Archived-At: > I don't know whether it's better. Maybe because, as I tried to explain > > earlier, the error handler would call `display-buffer' and fail the same > > way. > > And in response to that I said that then it is left to every > programmer using display-buffer to handle this very uncommon cases > instead. I never disputed that. But what you said earlier was that > So the average programmers is supposed to know how to handle this, but > those writing for example the routines that shows a backtrace when > there is an error are not. > > Why is the average programmer better at avoiding looping here? and I tried to explain that the average programmer usually doesn't mess things up in a way that the "very uncommon case" really occurs. So in practice the "very uncommon case" usually occurs only when a non-average programmer fails at writing a good `pop-up-frame-function'. In that case, however, signalling an error wouldn't help her much since that might call the same `pop-up-frame-function' again. martin