Re: Does display-buffer display the buffer or not?

[martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>]

 > Hm, is it sensible to have multiple frames on one tty?  You can only see
 > one at a time anyway...

That's what graphic-only for `pop-up-frames' is used for.  But this
option is ignored in the fallback case (unless `pop-up-frame-function'
wants to check it).

 >> It's just a fallback method and I'm not sure whether it's worth
 >> mentioning in the doc-string.
 >
 > Yes, IMO, it is.  And the "nil if no such window is found" should be
 > removed.  The fallback ensures that a window will always be found,
 > right?

As I explained elsewhere you can make `pop-up-frame-function' do
something silly, so the frame is not created in the worst case.  Hence,
I would have to say that `pop-up-frame-function' has to behave
reasonably in that case.  And I would have to enlist the windows
`display-buffer' tries to reuse before trying to pop up a new frame and
maybe some other things I never tried to understand.

 > With the current spelling, I read the docs like "the function caller
 > should check that the return-value of display-buffer is nil, and if it
 > is, act appropriately by creating a new frame, for example."

That's a correct conclusion, indeed.  The "creating a new frame" part
would then have to sidestep `pop-up-frame-function', obviously.

martin