On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 7:38 PM Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> wrote:

> > Currently, `split-window-sensibly' prefers to split vertically,
> > disregarding the shape of the frame.  This is a good default when
> > Emacs is taller than wider.  However, when Emacs is in fullscreen
> > (landscape screen layout), splitting vertically is generally not the
> > thing to do because there is plenty of space on the right.
> >
> > Typical scenario: Emacs is in fullscreen; one buffer is open in a window
> > covering the entire frame.  Another buffer is opened in a second
> > window (C-x 4 f). In this case, the split should generally be horizontal.
> > The attached patch changes `split-window-sensibly' to just try
> > spliting the longest edge first.
>
> I see no symmetry between width and height.
>
> To make a window usable you need to decide how many columns you need
> to fit into the window by customizing split-width-threshold.
>
> By default it's 160 that means two horizontally split windows
> with 80 columns in each that allows a comfortable use of each window.
>
> OTOH, the window height has less relevance since most of the time
> all windows are scrolled vertically.
>

Thanks for your reply.

My proposal is not about questioning the relevance of the
split-width-threshold and split-height-threshold. They are perfectly fine
to me.

I don't want to scroll twice more because of a vertical split, whereas I
have the 2/3 of my screen free to show another buffer of code.

In this scenario both splits would succeed because the frame dimension
exceeds by a lot their respective threshold.

My point is about the order in which splits are tried. I would like it to
first tries the longest edge.

So that if it succeed it is likely to be the direction where there is the
more space available.

But I understand the bias toward vertical splitting, that's why I added a
condition to prioritize vertical split if the width is less than 80. This
heuristic could be improved, thought.