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.