From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master 432c1aa: Use `pop-to-buffer-same-window' in `project-eshell' Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 20:54:36 +0200 Message-ID: <833481ce-5f13-77d5-deef-8d9f0c51cdd4@yandex.ru> References: <57B92EB1-334A-4330-A7CA-5F3474C06EEC@thornhill.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="15732"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 Cc: Stefan Kangas , =?UTF-8?Q?Simen_Heggest=c3=b8yl?= , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Theodor Thornhill Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 20 19:56:21 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 1lNgln-0003z4-K8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 19:56:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44926 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lNgll-0002LJ-Cq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 14:56:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45656) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lNgkF-0001Xj-8G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 14:54:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ed1-x533.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::533]:44837) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lNgkD-0002d6-90 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 14:54:42 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ed1-x533.google.com with SMTP id j3so14600722edp.11 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:54:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CYEQOCrLCUJmP+jddzjZfGZJYygOy1IndpHE7phiU1U=; b=HvmUpwpYa9jBaFtDzJgQvDXaTePDAFhT9SQ9RLTTuRtufMI17N1+MX91vEpIwhvW7R Z0orM6kLhnIApQi9NaGi9dd5O6uHAYz9BWzhxTqsd90hra4uM15BhjEN8TkFrYQ/Jx3/ kBN/q/RQBOY5Xb60AOKGwmrq/MsrRg/bmmLR43Q31lTaJx4d/WTN35t7Przpns9LVjt9 1Wx/4NF/wXuhGDfPasI0UCQbIO3AUmLnk48yoJuHmLlV1gVbT5cGLCj6eG+FXA9906Ci mIzKiJhWAMXEWGLkeRiIA9vKfWZ70tC0+yRZAA5maiTyoUGeH4fU1N2qommFGo140ObN +ctw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CYEQOCrLCUJmP+jddzjZfGZJYygOy1IndpHE7phiU1U=; b=QLzJxqArhXcckZBpMOJkMoBg55bhl9RG1JRrq+/KglUHKYqKbuA8vH/vly+Ch+EmpN VRY0pzRfP6BPvWJUpWNckYYV4FzXcMdTnT74A1oaqqtj+MyABVzehNYpJ6vQBEJzfjG3 P6eIhYEuxr7ecLoQuM4q3wBP6I2lKatwPCggL1tHGDc3FKVicg+FfLKrR2GGY/RYYCgW 0flq2Ga0u+FVnhGK3QFlPAtD02TCwVwYle4DD9ng78wAmO8/pfMccRxOhcMtA4fIj/cr vzTz6w+oEK/aIAS5Vbxz/dyOciCL+bzbCQNW8nB+p+KpMZ8WcMN0j4l8WodKVie8atp2 Jfgw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533z3OuLCnMoSvrMh0W5O3b6F/aP7X3vFzkYbmS210SZeTpq+62x +rDTOheqWYXaTZ3n5xrNE90/6Tn9wBI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzXm0AC/b98hvIPInwT+TEzbwJfAY42ZQ8lDCaazZh+rxBHBWUjiKmmJIoN+nRkNdfNmCE95Q== X-Received: by 2002:a50:f391:: with SMTP id g17mr16781018edm.26.1616266479007; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:54:39 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.0.6] ([46.251.119.176]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id m14sm6755115edr.13.2021.03.20.11.54.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:54:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <57B92EB1-334A-4330-A7CA-5F3474C06EEC@thornhill.no> Content-Language: en-US Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::533; envelope-from=raaahh@gmail.com; helo=mail-ed1-x533.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -14 X-Spam_score: -1.5 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no 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:266661 Archived-At: On 20.03.2021 19:21, Theodor Thornhill wrote: > Hi there! > >> 20. mar. 2021 kl. 18:08 skrev Dmitry Gutov : >> >> On 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? >> >> Perhaps the answer is to first decide which behavior makes most sense, then make M-x eshell and M-x shell both adopt it, and then do it for project-* versions as well (which would be the easy part)? > > When I first implemented those functions I made eshell behave more like shell, and also made shell behave more sensibly (to me... which also is the reason universal argument acts differently from mx shell). Right now I am thinking we should let display-buffer decide. Meaning not use pop-to-buffer-same-window? > Should we force one behavior over another? FWIW, my (moderate) preference is Eshell's behavior because it's also consistent with IELM or Dired. And I use it more. >> Otherwise, the difference in behavior should remain unnecessary evil as long as project-xyz follows xyz. >> >> I'm guessing the average user is more likely to more often use, say, eshell and project-eshell, rather than alternate between shell and eshell evenly. > > Not sure - i usually fall back to shell more and more often If Eshell + Shell fallback is a frequent pattern, then indeed consistency between them is desirable.