Re: Window configurations

[martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>]

 > So you're saying that C-x k's heuristic should be to try and restore the
 > previous window state?  I guess that could make sense, yes.

I was saying that _if_ we want to fix the behavior to handle Juri's
case, we'd have to call `other-buffer' with VISIBLE_OK non-nil (or
something the like).

 >> We could make this customizable.
 >
 > No, we want instead to try and think in each case which behavior would
 > make more sense.

We probably all agree that a window should not show a buffer visible
elsewhere when its buffer is killed or buried and its window-local
buffer list contains no other buffer.  Maybe we also agree that we
should show such a buffer when the window was "stolen" by a construct
like `with-temp-buffer'.

However, I'm afraid that there's no good approximation for the remaining
cases.  There are people used to edit large buffers by showing related
sections in two or more windows.  And there are people who don't do
that.  [The latter group should not be affected much by the new behavior
since we expect them to never show the same buffer twice at the same
time.  But I'm not sure whether the use of `split-window' runs counter
to such an assumption.]

 > And maybe you're right that in "all" cases, trying to
 > restore the previous window state is TRT, rather than choosing some
 > non-shown buffer.

I cannot be right since I never proposed that ;-)

martin