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#23093: 25.0.92; Change for the worse: minibuffer completion window splits below rather that right Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:43:36 +0100 Message-ID: <56F39AA8.3030401@gmx.at> References: <87bn66ifc3.fsf@gmail.com> <56F1932A.3060507@gmx.at> <87y49agutu.fsf@gmail.com> <56F24F4D.9010206@gmx.at> <87mvpoub9o.fsf@mail.linkov.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458805464 20784 80.91.229.3 (24 Mar 2016 07:44:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:44:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 23093@debbugs.gnu.org, "N. Jackson" To: Juri Linkov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 24 08:44:13 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aizwC-0005wA-TV for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:44:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48157 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aizwC-0003Cc-15 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:44:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42596) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aizw6-00039Q-H2 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:44:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aizw3-0008DB-53 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:44:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:37910) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aizw3-0008D7-1g for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:44:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1aizw2-0000il-Tj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:44:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:44:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 23093 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 23093-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B23093.14588054352744 (code B ref 23093); Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:44:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 23093) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2016 07:43:55 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35036 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1aizvv-0000iC-4C for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:43:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:65050) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1aizvt-0000hz-W7 for 23093@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:43:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([212.95.7.88]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MTO3f-1aIyt53R8Z-00SQzl; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:43:44 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87mvpoub9o.fsf@mail.linkov.net> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:1IIahsPYl9htOR5iovtFiZcIZ/LR+towEhMeCxrrO5Q2P65/zQm 01nfuWyCyOWdo9GDWZ76+Z9rJRVhFkKBdg3yWNBbSJ+slyo+7x90LRkj28olBq6nO/TAlOD 51jHId/ptbm8tM8PRFOqS1WybNEIBB0ze1ZsA8cJJ/fFlMz26gARq9N+mNiF0HpIem/iw/n kCRhQp9cwz/TTul+fu7EQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:sZUUs3o0kzw=:kAmt68p2MFQSX89wa8PeYM Gocg08h7iujD0lCQCLnFBcxCMEsgJZn8ih4Y0UloNYuqOyHJ/KFxnJr1wprVCDG3N/R/oH+OK cRQIZ5ZAsrhtplmQb3qKfZcSDwScgWq22ECJnAcF18I95wzLYCrIQ1Bd/NUrV+vsV1M44hBCN EvPmgogXh0CMdqK0Pv1SM/5eiSf4eJZEmTizZli2k9bwEUceE++tqOwTUA4Nfbn3kUn/2J/Yf V9ysz8plG2pPwjfL72MRKaYcjxuiY031JPa91VO5skyGNoRxlZRrv2VEDL4ZV8oeJmAlO+1s0 FyesOrOXBrF3E3Tj5Nmn14//HkhwlKShFHDdWvwrqnoNxTbbqtrHnvtieFIr9pFC2yJHwgTtZ Q3HuSY1Za8pMa44GyU9RA5FwFfOiO4Gie4sUNnrskrEvOzZNVlF62C+Faf6dfleZK/V2oUnhQ xBXvMSVhdCn3Scqj6+Lg2Ip24UTH6+cZyJLUZhpP7N033nprl+2dvrDnDBAJliaIuPqfhAMRu 6S8gaLDxmtUHgPCgDRNPcSuhvZ5h0l0GdL1lpgYzVvImLZGhI6B6JdXP6s9R3MEy74EDE8Ddh +L47G5aY2ssi56E2qfQy4acCw9nHYBVnmS++8OB4d6lF1WY3xe6JwlSKhumsgKw/Ts/z8QYTs 8PGBEPdwpxs+ZwvdrBt+R6nJXjzekJ49Il0H5EsBfPEdNUb5CadPe0lxK724RjW0iWwUGD/JW +SBCbcwiz8wz8nlafbRluAKLfM8CBIPdmIixR1Eq6u3mCXNXfMvjDah6qrv1s63ug5GdNZcM X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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:115432 Archived-At: > Before adding a new defcustom variable, could we try to make the > behavior more DWIM and automatically detect a window configuration > where displaying *Completions* side-by-side makes more sense like > in frames with 48-characters height and 2*80-characters width. IIUC the current scheme pretty well handles the case where multiple windows are already present when completion is attempted. And IIRC we also wanted the *Completions* window appear near the echo area. Doing both of these for side-by-side windows seems pretty contrived. I think that describing an alternative =E2=80=98display-buffer-alist=E2=80=99 spe= c in the manual should be sufficient. > Is it possible to tune =E2=80=98temp-buffer-max-height=E2=80=99 to han= dle this? =E2=80=98temp-buffer-max-height=E2=80=99 is effective only if =E2=80=98te= mp-buffer-resize-mode=E2=80=99 is enabled. =E2=80=98temp-buffer-resize-mode=E2=80=99 is not enabled by = default. > Or maybe we need to add new conditional actions like > =E2=80=98display-buffer-below-selected-if-high-enough=E2=80=99 or > =E2=80=98display-buffer-in-right-window-if-height-is-narrow=E2=80=99 o= r? Rather not. In some sense we do the former already although IIUC we never consult the number of completions before splitting off the window. The latter looks like a special form of =E2=80=98split-window-sensibly=E2= =80=99 with all its problems. martin