From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: pop-to-buffer-same-window Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:25:24 -0400 Message-ID: <874o0w6xhn.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <871uw05jfk.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1314894335 23985 80.91.229.12 (1 Sep 2011 16:25:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 16:25:35 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 01 18:25:31 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1QzA54-0007Jk-He for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 18:25:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56994 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QzA53-0005t9-Tj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:25:29 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:57822) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QzA51-0005t2-Ko for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:25:28 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QzA50-00018q-5Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:25:27 -0400 Original-Received: from vm-emlprdomr-05.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.146]:43597) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QzA50-00018m-2W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:25:26 -0400 Original-Received: from furball (dhcp-128-36-158-249.central.yale.edu [128.36.158.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-05.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p81GPO7x024342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 12:25:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <871uw05jfk.fsf@stupidchicken.com> (Chong Yidong's message of "Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:14:23 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.146 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.132.50.146 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:143698 Archived-At: Chong Yidong writes: > Was there any particular reason for adding a separate > pop-to-buffer-same-window function, as opposed to adding an additional > meaning to pop-to-buffer's OTHER-WINDOW argument, i.e. > > (pop-to-buffer buffer 'same-window) > > ? I don't recall any such discussion when pop-to-buffer-same-window was > originally introduced, but could be mistaken. I guess the main reason for a separate `pop-to-buffer-same-window' is to provide a separate command for users to bind to. Is that the reason? If so, is `pop-to-buffer-same-window' supposed to supplant interactive calls to switch-to-buffer? Someone who uses dedicated windows (Stefan?) should probably weigh in.