Re: Resizing windows after display-buffer

[martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>]

 > In my everyday use, I display the buffer I'm working on (code, a text
 > file, whatever) in a full window; the only time that the window is
 > split is for temporary or secondary uses; for example, help windows,
 > occur output, ielm, an inferior mode (python, lisp, etc.), re-builder,
 > bs-show, etc; and I make sure that the "secondary" buffer goes always
 > to the bottom window and that window is resized to fit the buffer or
 > have a height limit (typically about a third of the frame height).

I suppose the `fit-window-to-buffer' feature should probably depend on
the buffer name much like the options `same-window-buffer-names' or
`special-display-buffer-names' so a user can choose the set of buffers
where the windows should fit.  (I know that the variable can be made
buffer-local but the customization mechanism doesn't support that.)

 > If
 > I switch to the bottom window and do something that would cause the
 > top window to display another buffer (multi-occur, for example, or
 > selecting a new buffer from bs-show), I *don't* want the top window to
 > be resized.

This means the `fit-window-to-buffer' scheme should probably only apply
to new windows.  In the case you describe we have also to observe things
like `even-window-heights' whose interaction with `fit-window-to-buffer'
seems yet unresolved at the moment.  Likely `fit-window-to-buffer'
should prevail, but should we, for example, even sizes when both buffers
are to large to fit the window?

 > So, in my case, a setting that would make every display-buffer to try
 > to fit is much worse than a minor mode that I can call from whatever
 > mode hook I like.

We already have a defcustom like `dired-shrink-to-fit'.  Also note that
`temp-buffer-resize-mode' only applies to the `display-buffer' call
itself.  Thereafter, it does not have any effect - changing the size of
characters or the text of the buffer doesn't trigger resizing of the
window.  Hence calling this a mode seems a bit exaggerated.

So the question is why you think that activating a minor mode from a
mode hook is more convenient than setting an option from that hook.

martin