From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:03:08 +0300 Organization: JURTA Message-ID: <87pqkpzg8f.fsf@mail.jurta.org> References: <87mxgem09k.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4E2A7EBD.7050300@gmx.at> <87livooqt6.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4E2B158B.1080101@gmx.at> <87wrf8iyse.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4E2BEED2.5040608@gmx.at> <8739hvu6lh.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4E2C50E6.3020103@gmx.at> <878vrnweju.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4E2D34D7.4040002@gmx.at> <87mxg2fw74.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <87pqkxrgdx.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <878vrly3cx.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <4E355CE0.4030006@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1312188070 8309 80.91.229.12 (1 Aug 2011 08:41:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 08:41:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 01 10:41:05 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 1Qno3c-00026w-TA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:41:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54211 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qno3c-0001UW-AI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 04:41:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:42550) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qno3Z-0001UO-D3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 04:41:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qno3X-0004vH-JL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 04:41:01 -0400 Original-Received: from smarty.dreamhost.com ([208.113.175.8]:46292) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qno3X-0004uw-EL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 04:40:59 -0400 Original-Received: from ps18281.dreamhostps.com (ps18281.dreamhost.com [69.163.218.105]) by smarty.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975B96E805E; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 01:40:56 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (ps18281.dreamhostps.com [69.163.218.105]) by ps18281.dreamhostps.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B8B5451C114; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 01:40:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E355CE0.4030006@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Sun, 31 Jul 2011 15:47:12 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 208.113.175.8 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:142620 Archived-At: > A pure condition/rule analogy is hard to achieve. IIUC, for example, > `even-window-sizes' would be a rule. This rule works on the conditions > that the window used and the selected window are adjacent, one of them > is higher, ... Would these be conditions? These are not conditions. They are post-actions, i.e. the final actions to be called after performing base actions, so merging should take care of putting `even-window-sizes' after window splitting, etc. Moreover, I suspect that `even-window-sizes' is unnecessary. Using `balance-windows' at the end of the action part of the rule should do the same. Their functionalities are conceptually similar, so I think they should be joined to `balance-windows'. > I'm not sure what you mean by "merging actions". How would you "merge > in" the Emacs 23 default behavior of evening window heights? In Emacs 23, `display-buffer' called `window--even-window-heights' unconditionally. So calling it from the action part of the rule should be equivalent.