bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning

bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning

[Drew Adams]

If code uses function `dired-pop-to-buffer', this is the byte-compiler
warning you get:

`dired-pop-to-buffer' is an obsolete function (as of 24.3);
use `dired-mark-pop-up' instead.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is a ridiculous warning.  `dired-mark-pop-up' is about acting on
each of the marked files and directories.  `dired-pop-to-buffer' pops
up a single buffer.

There is zero connection between `dired-mark-pop-up' and
`dired-pop-to-buffer'.


In GNU Emacs 25.1.1 (x86_64-w64-mingw32)
 of 2016-11-15
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --without-dbus --without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=-O2
 -static -g3''

bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> If code uses function `dired-pop-to-buffer', this is the byte-compiler
> warning you get:
>
> `dired-pop-to-buffer' is an obsolete function (as of 24.3);
> use `dired-mark-pop-up' instead.
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> That is a ridiculous warning.  `dired-mark-pop-up' is about acting on
> each of the marked files and directories.  `dired-pop-to-buffer' pops
> up a single buffer.
>
> There is zero connection between `dired-mark-pop-up' and
> `dired-pop-to-buffer'.

Those functions seem to have little to do with each other; yes.  So I've
now removed the reference.

It was added with a reference to bug 1806, which is a 170 message long
thread which I've not read.  I've Cc'd Juri (who made the change) in
case the reference makes sense anyway, in which case I'll revert my
change.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning

[martin rudalics]

 > It was added with a reference to bug 1806, which is a 170 message long
 > thread which I've not read.  I've Cc'd Juri (who made the change) in
 > case the reference makes sense anyway, in which case I'll revert my
 > change.

I think the declaration should say to use 'pop-to-buffer' instead of
'dired-pop-to-buffer'.  But let's wait for Juri.

martin

bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning

[Juri Linkov]

>> It was added with a reference to bug 1806, which is a 170 message long
>> thread which I've not read.  I've Cc'd Juri (who made the change) in
>> case the reference makes sense anyway, in which case I'll revert my
>> change.
>
> I think the declaration should say to use 'pop-to-buffer' instead of
> 'dired-pop-to-buffer'.  But let's wait for Juri.

Yes, either 'pop-to-buffer' or 'dired-mark-pop-up'.  If 'dired-mark-pop-up'
doesn't suit the needs due to its narrow applicability, then a more general
'pop-to-buffer' should be used.  'dired-pop-to-buffer' was an ugly wrapper
around 'pop-to-buffer' with some additions that now should be specified
as ACTION args of 'display-buffer' (an example is in 'dired-mark-pop-up').
I don't understand why Drew still uses 'dired-pop-to-buffer'.

bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning

[Drew Adams]

> Yes, either 'pop-to-buffer' or 'dired-mark-pop-up'.  If 'dired-mark-
> pop-up'
> doesn't suit the needs due to its narrow applicability, then a more
> general
> 'pop-to-buffer' should be used.  'dired-pop-to-buffer' was an ugly
> wrapper
> around 'pop-to-buffer' with some additions that now should be specified
> as ACTION args of 'display-buffer' (an example is in 'dired-mark-pop-
> up').
> I don't understand why Drew still uses 'dired-pop-to-buffer'.

I use `dired-pop-to-buffer' in more than one place
in my code (Dired+).  (I use a different definition
of it, but that's not really important here.  I also
use a different definition of `dired-mark-pop-up'.)

`dired-pop-to-buffer' shouldn't have been declared
"obsolete" in my opinion.  But in any case, surely
`dired-mark-pop-up' can't be used to do anything
like what it does.  (And no, `pop-to-buffer' isn't
an adequate replacement for it either.)

> some additions that now should be specified
> as ACTION args of 'display-buffer' (an example
> is in 'dired-mark-pop-up').

FWIW, we apparently disagree about whether using
`display-buffer' ACTION args is the way to do things.
We likely have different ideas about what is elegant
and what is ugly. ;-)  When a doc string resorts to
telling users things like this, I'd say we're already
veering off the elegant road:

 "use the Customization interface to add a new rule
  to `display-buffer-alist' where condition regexp is
  \"^ \\*Marked Files\\*$\", action argument symbol
  is `window-height' and its value is nil."

bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> writes:

>> I think the declaration should say to use 'pop-to-buffer' instead of
>> 'dired-pop-to-buffer'.  But let's wait for Juri.
>
> Yes, either 'pop-to-buffer' or 'dired-mark-pop-up'. 

I've now done the former.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning

[Drew Adams]

> >> I think the declaration should say to use 'pop-to-buffer' instead of
> >> 'dired-pop-to-buffer'.  But let's wait for Juri.
> >
> > Yes, either 'pop-to-buffer' or 'dired-mark-pop-up'.
> 
> I've now done the former.

OK, so instead of a "done" that's pretty much
a "won't fix" now.

A fairer treatment would be:
(declare (obsolete nil "24.3"))

A better treatment would be to remove the
declaration (un-obsolete).