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.