RE: `pop-up-frames' and binding/setting user options [was: Documenting buffer display]

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

>  >> This command would be for usually popping up the bookmark in another
>  >> frame and the user would know that.  However, for certain, specified
>  >> bookmarks the user might want to use the selected frame instead and
>  >> still use the same command.
>  >
>  > Why would someone choose to use an `other-frame'
>  > command to get some behavior other than `other-frame'?
> 
> Because for a user 'other-frame' may be TRT for most bookmarks but not
> for a few specific ones.

Sure, we both acknowledged that.  But why would you
choose to use an `other-frame' command for those
specific bookmarks for which it is not TRT?  That's
the question.

>  > Each of those specific bookmark jump commands
>  > specifies a particular buffer-display behavior
>  > (except `bookmark-jump', which accepts a behavior
>  > argument).  Is that what you call the application
>  > overriding it?
> 
> No.  It's the way the command specifies the behavior: If it does so by
> binding a global variable, the result may be equivocal when the user
> has customized 'display-buffer-alist'.  If it does so by setting the
> ACTION argument, the result is unequivocal.

Specifics, please.  If by equivocal you mean here that
a user may not get what she expects sometimes then I
imagine that the answer is to not use that approach in
that case.

So far, you haven't shown (AFAICT) any difference
between binding `pop-up-frames' and imposing the same
behavior by passing an ACTION argument.  But if there
is a difference in some case then I'd think the answer
would be to use whichever of those approaches DTRT,
and not the other.

Is your argument against `pop-up-frames' only that
of a maintainer - not wanting to bother maintaining
support?  Or is it that you see it as a bad thing
for users to be able to use `pop-up-frames'?

Saying that in some case (which I haven't seen
demonstrated yet) it doesn't do the same thing that
passing an equivalent argument does, does not
invalidate its usefulness.  At most it would be an
argument for not using it in those hypothetical
problematic cases.