RE: Documenting buffer display

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

>  > Being able to simply bind an option such as `pop-up-frames',
>  > to change the behavior of existing code, is very useful.
> 
> If it overrides a user's customization then that's not useful but bad.

I disagree. If the behavior is documented in the command's doc
string, as it should be, then the user is aware of it. Using a given
command is a user choice. There is no reason to put on the hair
shirt of not binding a user option in a user command, as long as
the behavior is documented and the command ends always by
restoring the user's preferred value for the option.

Secondly, users themselves define commands, and the ability
to bind such a variable - whether it is an option or not, is very
useful for users.

>  > Please keep supporting, and not at all discourage, `pop-up-frames'
>  > and similar.
> 
> We do our best to support them in present code. 

Thank you. That's all anyone can ask for. It's all I'm asking.

> We have to discourage their use because there's no
> guarantee that future code will support them.

Not a good argument, IMO. There's never a guarantee
that any future code will support anything.

That's not a reason to remove doc for useful behavior
and add doc that this or that useful feature is not
guaranteed to be supported forever. There's no need
for such a disclaimer - this applies to everything in Emacs. 

> Have you read what I wrote about 'pop-up-frame-alist'?  Already now
> there's no guarantee that we can maintain these old options properly.
> And I never tried to probe very deep in this area.

No guarantee is no reason to discourage their use.
If there are bugs and they get reported then that
shows that the features are used.

And I do appreciate that you have made an effort to
maintain the functionality (as well as introducing new
features).

Anyway, again, just one opinion.