From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Window configurations Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 22:46:19 +0300 Organization: JURTA Message-ID: <8739x5tfl4.fsf@mail.jurta.org> References: <4BB4CF6B.2000007@alice.it> <871vdu6qn5.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <87bpcv1wvt.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <4BE13828.2030609@gmx.at> <87vdb2qo82.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <4BE27C17.3030005@gmx.at> <87vdav4vx5.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <4BE900E7.3090402@gmx.at> <87r5liqv8f.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <4BEA74DC.2060103@gmx.at> <87y6fns8qo.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <4BECF4D6.9030707@gmx.at> <87632na2af.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <4C03F1B5.8040708@gmx.at> <4C04D1BF.9070902@gmx.at> <4C052F8C.8030208@gmx.at> <87sk56sg6x.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <4C0655E0.80208@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1275508776 8088 80.91.229.12 (2 Jun 2010 19:59:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 19:59:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , Emacs To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 02 21:59:29 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJu5x-0001Pj-Qw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 21:59:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54209 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OJu5m-0005xS-0B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:59:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45665 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OJu4x-00052R-7r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:58:26 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJu4n-0008Dd-M7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:58:15 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp-out1.starman.ee ([85.253.0.3]:41958 helo=mx1.starman.ee) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJu4n-0008Cx-GA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:58:09 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by Amavisd-New at mx1.starman.ee Original-Received: from mail.starman.ee (82.131.32.82.cable.starman.ee [82.131.32.82]) by mx1.starman.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE77E3F40E1; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:58:03 +0300 (EEST) In-Reply-To: <4C0655E0.80208@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:00:16 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:125463 Archived-At: >> I think changing the argument VISIBLE_OK won't help. The existing >> calls of `other-buffer' (where VISIBLE_OK is nil) should keep the >> current behavior of `other-buffer' that prefers not visible buffers >> to visible buffers (when the window-local buffer-list is empty). > > You mean that when the window-local buffer-list is not empty these calls > should be allowed to choose a visible buffer? What if an application > wants to specify for a specific call that `other-buffer' does not return > a visible buffer? Then `other-buffer' is too low-level to implement this. Maybe `kill-buffer' and `bury-buffer' are more suitable places. >> I see no problem if we will push the current buffer to the window-local >> buffer-list in the same places in code where currently the buffer is >> pushed to the frame-local buffer-list (and buried-buffer-list). > > We'd change the behavior for people used to see the same buffer in two > windows simultaneously only for the short period when they've split a > window and have not yet shown the wanted buffer in it. I don't see a problem with `split-window': after splitting, the second window's buffer-list is empty, thus it adheres to the current behavior. -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/