From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 21:07:35 +0200
Message-ID: <86jzbzphu0.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <CAPqtr1KBPhZSLPcJEvx1UW36hLesmzvduvHekNaat=MeVw+h1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <87r06a3yfg.fsf@mail.linkov.net>
 <CAPqtr1+NuQv7p3feoUSJiWhjKwbG3YbXPBEcfGg19XTE_a2BMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <87zfkx2ydr.fsf@mail.linkov.net>
 <CAPqtr1KaUfQjZfTKhBJ1n=Gptoa798C89tSWwDGb84RivOmYqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8734io2hac.fsf@mail.linkov.net>
 <CAPqtr1+CzO+rfxSOVAQgrag=-SD_0kKt24-Qwi=Q_u5V8aY1Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <86pllrpn2p.fsf@gnu.org> <87ikrjfrq3.fsf@mail.linkov.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214";
	logging-data="34429"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io"
Cc: nicolas.despres@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
To: Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net>
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 16 20:08:33 2024
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
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 <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1tNGSH-0008mG-JQ
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2024 20:08:33 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <emacs-devel-bounces@gnu.org>)
	id 1tNGRa-0008GO-GB; Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:07:50 -0500
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10])
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>) id 1tNGRY-0008Fz-6N
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:07:48 -0500
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
 id 1tNGRX-0001ys-QE; Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:07:47 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
 s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:
 Date; bh=TNB7JDKN4s04odfhFr5zkVAvc2uhmhviHbvMprdwXqU=; b=dcLICK0I6L59bHLdn41n
 08LqbF5kksJScmCrGIoNoYQqpjIkxhnp4bafYnG2ct4ZMHNervOfG09c609pyiWqThTUEZLHBvlyw
 ReQKf29sNQSfTP6wt6qZdkkYI5uao2JIL/sMt0Am93CyWVt6f9ljhOXV7lKns8Fr0vByY8m9NCs78
 NCUHO5kkjGsbmM2UZKQ/Y1L1Q8cZeraMEkTAdQlMtCaxhh7wqwG+rimj38T1uFdXuMCE6P2my6pYC
 nwI6Dvv2qISuW7yGhtUwdtRnpIjtkdWQvCJxQhkGrIa7kZLKVRCr7fRRFGCrFEvejLHbtIIREhkPj
 IRBvTUKvSeMqRQ==;
In-Reply-To: <87ikrjfrq3.fsf@mail.linkov.net> (message from Juri Linkov on
 Mon, 16 Dec 2024 19:44:04 +0200)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-devel>,
 <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
 <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org
Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:326560
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/326560>

> From: Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net>
> Cc: Nicolas Desprès <nicolas.despres@gmail.com>,
>   emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 19:44:04 +0200
> 
> >> I wrote a new patch that always fallback on vertical split, and I got rid of the weird (width > 80) condition since
> >> split-width-threshold already does it.
> >> 
> >> The result is a simpler patch that works perfectly.
> >> 
> >> It basically does that:
> >> 
> >> if width > height:
> >>    try to split horizontally, then try to split vertically
> >> else
> >>    try to split vertically, then try to split horizontally
> >> fallback to vertical split
> >
> > AFAIU, this is an incompatible change in behavior, with no way for
> > users who want the old behavior to get it back.
> >
> > If so, please augment the change by a user option which controls
> > whether windows are split as they were before or according to the new
> > algorithm.  We can then discuss whether the default will be the old
> > behavior or the new one.
> 
> There is already the existing option 'split-window-preferred-function'.
> It could provide a choice of more values to select a predefined
> behavior.

We cannot ask users to write a function in order to get back old
behavior.  Customizations via functions is not user-friendly enough
for such simple tasks.