From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Katsumi Yamaoka Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [display-buffer] a way to make it behave as before? Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:13:13 +0900 Organization: Emacsen advocacy group Message-ID: References: <4DFB7705.2000401@gmx.at> <4DFF1223.5030100@gmx.at> <4DFF3BA8.3070007@gmx.at> <4E00C2C8.6040303@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1308705231 5001 80.91.229.12 (22 Jun 2011 01:13:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 01:13:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 22 03:13:47 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 1QZC0o-0001Gh-Lh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 03:13:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45607 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZC0n-0007eR-UX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:13:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56493) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZC0Z-0007e2-HU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:13:32 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZC0X-0003Zy-Og for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:13:31 -0400 Original-Received: from orlando.hostforweb.net ([216.246.45.90]:34548) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZC0X-0003Z3-Eb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:13:29 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35216) by orlando.hostforweb.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QZC0U-0006Uf-0T; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:13:26 -0500 X-Face: #kKnN,xUnmKia.'[pp`; Omh}odZK)?7wQSl"4o04=EixTF+V[""w~iNbM9ZL+.b*_CxUmFk B#Fu[*?MZZH@IkN:!"\w%I_zt>[$nm7nQosZ<3eu; B:$Q_:p!',P.c0-_Cy[dz4oIpw0ESA^D*1Lw= L&i*6&( User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.50 (cygwin) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Lyiqd3yu6P9yI3iVsQc2jQVQX+g= X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - orlando.hostforweb.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gnu.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jpl.org X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) X-Received-From: 216.246.45.90 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:140820 Archived-At: martin rudalics wrote: [...] > There was a remnant of my test settings in the default value of the > pop-up-frame specifier: I made any new frame created this way > unsplittable. So this is part of the behavior you see. Currently, I > can reproduce the "display on another frame" behavior iff I make the > selected window small enough and all other windows on this frame > unusable. Please try once more. What does `unusable' mean? [...] > If I prepend a (reuse-window nil nil nil) specifier to the first entry > in `display-buffer-alist' the selected window gets reused (with the old > unsplittable frame behavior). Verified. It's not what I want, though. I only want `C-x 4 f' to split the current window or to use the other window within the frame as exactly the same as old Emacsen do. That the new `display-buffer' and friends are useful is beyond doubt, but I can imagine people will be getting flustered for the new behavior sooner or later. For instance, someone in Japan asked for a help last night; a frame that BBDB makes is too large, a frame used to compose a mail is too small, etc. We can't support all of them, can we? So, you'd better make `display-buffer-alist' default to `conservative' or provide a switch that enables a user to make `display-buffer' behave as before completely, I think. BTW, shouldn't the default size of a newly created frame follow that of `emacs -Q' or `C-x 5 2' ? I feel 80x24 is too small. Regards,