>> We have 'display-buffer-alist' for quite some time now.
 >> So please consider making this an action alist entry.
 >
 > Yes, it would be much better, but it never seems to reach the top of my
 > todo list.
 >
 >> That way a user can decide whether all buffers displayed by
 >> 'display-buffer' should be dedicated or only certain ones and which
 >> 'dedicated' value they should get.
 >
 > Historically, special-display-buffer-alist always caused
 > the created frames/windows to be dedicated, so
 > display-buffer-mark-dedicated extends this to those windows created for
 > other reasons.
 >
 > I haven't looked in detail, but this seems to make it less trivial to
 > just add a new action alist parameter: it should default to `t` if we
 > matched in display-buffer-alist but to nil if we only rely on
 > display-buffer-base-action?

I'm missing you here.  An ALIST argument is equally passed to all
buffer display actions regardless of whether they are specifed by
'display-buffer-base-action' or by someone else.  It's their choice
whether they want to obey or disregard it.  The same currently holds
for 'display-buffer-mark-dedicated'.

 > Also, some (all?) let-bindings of display-buffer-mark-dedicated should

I don't see any such bindings in our current code base.

 > now be unnecessary (because of the features you added so bury-buffer (or
 > was it quit-window?) automatically deletes the window).

This use case of dedicated windows should be no more necessary indeed.

I attach a patch of my proposed changes.  After applying that I have
no more objections against renaming 'window--display-buffer' any way
people want.

martin