From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6280: 24.0.50; (elisp) Dedicated Windows Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 11:19:24 +0200 Message-ID: <4BFF8A9C.8060700@gmx.at> References: <4BFEAAE6.60301@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1275039308 12456 80.91.229.12 (28 May 2010 09:35:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 09:35:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , 6280@debbugs.gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 28 11:35:06 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHvy5-0005VD-L2 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 11:35:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54683 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OHvs9-0007jA-Cs for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 05:28:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=36115 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OHvqi-00078u-8W for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 05:27:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHvqh-0000nP-AU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 05:27:28 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:46161) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHvqh-0000nK-7P for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 05:27:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHvjX-0004Pi-OC; Fri, 28 May 2010 05:20:03 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 09:20:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6280 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 6280-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6280.127503837216938 (code B ref 6280); Fri, 28 May 2010 09:20:03 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6280) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 May 2010 09:19:32 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHvj1-0004P9-V3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 05:19:32 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHviz-0004P4-98 for 6280@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 05:19:30 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 28 May 2010 09:19:24 -0000 Original-Received: from 62-47-48-124.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.48.124]) [62.47.48.124] by mail.gmx.net (mp071) with SMTP; 28 May 2010 11:19:24 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+nFh8LK7inusmR1LPhtDuAsHHYGw+VSvjj+GVnvn MFEkTJTHgJfKYr User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 05:20:03 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:37361 Archived-At: >> Should users really control the dedicatedness of individual windows? > > Questions that start "Should users really control" are anti-GNU/Emacs. (Only > half-kidding.) Users are not losers. Emacs is free software. I don't intend to control each and every aspect of it. > FYI, here is what the OP on help-gnu-emacs said, before his technical request: > > OP> I swear, if emacs "steals" a window to reuse for > OP> something else again, I'm going to swing an axe at it. I doubt that would help much. > IMO, users should be able to make windows dedicated. > And they are able to, AFAICT. > > BTW, why do you specify "individual" windows here? Did you mean something > special by that? ECB dedicates windows to compiler output, system messages, file lists, tags, bookmarks ... These are windows grouped around an undedicated edit area and ECB takes care or assigning buffers to the dedicated windows. ECB doesn't support dedicating "individual" windows within the editor area. > The OP wants to dedicate all windows for buffers in a certain > mode. Suppose you are in a help buffer and want to follow a cross reference to an Elisp source code buffer. IIRC this usually calls `pop-to-buffer'. Now should this action allow `display-buffer' to "steal" a window showing another Elisp buffer? > * To dedicate all windows, can't you just > set `special-display-regexps' to include ".*"? > * To dedicate all windows for buffers in a mode, can't you just > add ".*" to `special-display-regexps' on the mode hook and > make the var buffer-local? > > Those both seem to work OK. If you customize `emacs-lisp-mode-hook' to add this > function, doesn't it DTRT for you? > > (lambda () > (make-local-variable 'special-display-regexps) > (add-to-list 'special-display-regexps ".*")) I completely fail to understand how `special-display-regexps' would enter here and how it could be used for the OP's purposes. Also, making `special-display-regexps' buffer-local doesn't make sense to me. At the time `display-buffer' is called _any_ buffer may be current. Maybe Stefan can tell us more. I suppose he's the only one using (weakly) dedicated windows in some organized way. martin