RE: Buffer listing in multiple frames/ttys

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

    > For people, like me, who use pop-up-frames = t, this means that the
    > order is usually different, depending on what _buffer_ you call it
    > from.
    > I can live with that reordering behavior, I guess. But, it might be
    > best if, as before, the same order were used for the buffer menu,
    > regardless of which frame you call it from. I'm not sure about that
    > (hence, "might be") - what do others think?
    
    Well, it might be question a personal preference.  I usually sort my
    frames thematically (one for email, one for coding, etc), so a local
    buffer list makes much more sense.  It also seems like the only
    reasonable behaviour in a multi-display environment. 

Using pop-up-frames = t is quite different from having a set of fixed, thematic frames. It means that _each_ buffer is opened in a separate frame.

I don't think that this question is as much a "question of personal preference" as it is a question of the value of pop-up-frames (which is a question of personal preference, of course). I think that people who use pop-up-frames = t will be confused or annoyed by the new behavior - but I'll ask again: "What do others think?"
    
    The iswitchb package has a similar case, and it provides the
    iswitchb-use-frame-buffer-list variable to let the user decide.
    
    Is the reordering really inconvenient with pop-up-frames, or is it
    just surprising at first?

To understand what your change means for users with pop-up-frames = t, imagine that the order of the buffer menu were changed each time you called it from a different Emacs _window_ - that's what it's like. Would you be just "surprised" or also "annoyed" by such behavior? I haven't played with the new behavior much, but I think I'll be annoyed by it.

So, if it's not too much trouble, I'd suggest having the code test whether pop-up-frames is non-nil and, if so, using the old behavior. This would be less confusing and more manageable, for people using pop-up-frames = t. 

Also, if someone has gone to the trouble of sorting the buffer menu, and then calls it again, from a different frame, your change will require manually resorting it, just to get back the last sort order. I would prefer that the buffer menu not get resorted this way (order changed) behind my back.
    
    > I'm also curious how this change actually fixes the problem reported
    > for tty - doesn't function `buffer-list' still list all buffers, so
    > that all get listed in the buffer menu? I don't see where the code
    > does anything different for the tty case.
    
    AFAICS the submitter only wanted a local ordering; he did not want to
    eliminate references to buffers on other displays.

That was not my reading of the OP, but the behavior for tty makes no difference to me. Thanks for confirming that my reading of the code was correct, in any case.