From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Theodor Thornhill Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master 432c1aa: Use `pop-to-buffer-same-window' in `project-eshell' Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 18:21:23 +0100 Message-ID: <57B92EB1-334A-4330-A7CA-5F3474C06EEC@thornhill.no> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="14598"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Stefan Kangas , =?utf-8?Q?Simen_Heggest=C3=B8yl?= , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 20 18:22:10 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lNfIe-0003fJ-UY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 18:22:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45298 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lNfId-0001Y1-UJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:22:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34808) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lNfI6-00017f-Ae for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:21:34 -0400 Original-Received: from out0.migadu.com ([94.23.1.103]:33055) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lNfI2-0004at-Ha for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:21:34 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thornhill.no; s=key1; t=1616260885; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=EhWAcWTqMdIWyMpi8QGcdsYC3dDhpEhbsUPtaZDSuSA=; b=u7H4WG1yqs1K5R3c3oaIvdbDZLgQgx/M70Zeps8HrS3moCK95kZb0cqiIcqDFDqFzJDFlk FnU+pvw3eE46ZWpZpauQ0Uhr7AfZVZDijq84WpITUBvp3vRXx8waaGyXvt+mAIp2z95H43 J8Dwx6nG2WRETVnw8GKGtatXv/leZUM7nRf2n/ahvLeg+egaHhbOcYHwcChSLdDAz/9oxm G5Sb/GnXS0PeblzoWi6+QxuKzdHyYPTlGXfSJOTUsH3Tr+61RS88y323zriX5VZRn8SiXH 7ch96FkQXg77DeZqx3K1/tGAdQjrimwgBsVcib1UXrXbgjMxQnMlo2QrLSjdVg== X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Migadu-Auth-User: theo@thornhill.no Received-SPF: pass client-ip=94.23.1.103; envelope-from=theo@thornhill.no; helo=out0.migadu.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:266658 Archived-At: Hi there! > 20. mar. 2021 kl. 18:08 skrev Dmitry Gutov : >=20 > =EF=BB=BFOn 20.03.2021 04:06, Stefan Kangas wrote: >> But now `project-eshell' and `project-shell' behave differently, which >> seems unfortunate. So if this is the behavior we want, shouldn't we >> change the latter as well for consistency? >=20 > Perhaps the answer is to first decide which behavior makes most sense, the= n make M-x eshell and M-x shell both adopt it, and then do it for project-* v= ersions as well (which would be the easy part)? When I first implemented those functions I made eshell behave more like shel= l, and also made shell behave more sensibly (to me... which also is the reas= on universal argument acts differently from mx shell). Right now I am thinki= ng we should let display-buffer decide.=20 Should we force one behavior over another? >=20 > Otherwise, the difference in behavior should remain unnecessary evil as lo= ng as project-xyz follows xyz. >=20 > I'm guessing the average user is more likely to more often use, say, eshel= l and project-eshell, rather than alternate between shell and eshell evenly.= Not sure - i usually fall back to shell more and more often =E2=80=94 Theodor