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#8911: bs-cycle-next deletes window in some cases. Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:42:08 +0200 Message-ID: <4E00ADC0.80006@gmx.at> References: <4E009EB0.1050903@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1308668697 19460 80.91.229.12 (21 Jun 2011 15:04:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:04:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 8911@debbugs.gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 21 17:04:53 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ2VX-0004iB-Lm for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:04:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42375 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ2VW-00079t-HG for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:04:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:52095) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ2AU-0001B5-BR for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:43:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ2AR-0006ju-P6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:43:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:60116) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ2AR-0006jq-IW for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:43:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ2AQ-0007TR-LO; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:43:02 -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: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:43:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8911 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 8911-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8911.130866733828673 (code B ref 8911); Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:43:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8911) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Jun 2011 14:42:18 +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 1QZ29i-0007SQ-Fu for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:42:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ29f-0007SD-0U for 8911@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:42:16 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2011 14:42:08 -0000 Original-Received: from 62-47-41-150.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.41.150]) [62.47.41.150] by mail.gmx.net (mp013) with SMTP; 21 Jun 2011 16:42:08 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/Yo6hbnwDYI8Lwmm7j1zugWt4+18HN8xlRLQnVDj 7FDdcH2Bi//5UL 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: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:43:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:47378 Archived-At: >> - have `bs-cycle-next' call `unrecord-buffer' instead of `bury-buffer', > > That seems to work, yes. I think it's the correct way to handle the present case. IIUC, all `bs-cycle-next' wants is to get the buffer out of the way in the buffer-list. Is that assumption correct? >> - have `bury-buffer' only delete dedicated windows as before, > > I don't follow you. Before that change, bury-buffer was not called > only on dedicated windows. The trouble was that, when called on a > dedicated window, it iconified the frame. I stand corrected. But then the buffer shown in the dedicated window kept its position in the buffer list. Isn't that a bug? >> - give `bury-buffer' an extra argument which allows (or forbids) to >> delete the selected window (or corresponding frame), > > Perhaps this is the best long term answer. But it requires for each caller to guess the right approach :-( >> - make sure that `bury-buffer' deletes only automatically created >> windows (much like the recent option `frame-auto-delete'). > > What's an "automatically created window"? Those infamous windows popped up by `display-buffer'. I'm afraid that a user of `bs-cycle-next' will hardly remember why the window was created in the first place. >> Earlier versions of this used >> to iconify frames which some people on this list disliked severely so I >> removed it. So far no one missed this issue, but maybe I shall restore >> it as well? > > Again, I don't follow you. This: > > (progn > (set-window-dedicated-p (selected-window) t) > (bury-buffer)) > > still iconifies the frame. You're right. My memory was wandering. martin