From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
Cc: Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se>,
sds@gnu.org, Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no>,
52467@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#52467: 29.0.50; Use pop-to-buffer for shell
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2021 12:35:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a6gnzjhm.fsf@gnus.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ac6b4c44-a1e9-f433-35e7-61f3c8437204@yandex.ru> (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Sun, 26 Dec 2021 02:47:59 +0200")
Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> writes:
> Or to approach the question from another angle, the difference between
> that behavior and the current one is that you can create two windows
> that show the same buffer. Do we want that to happen with 'M-x shell'
> without prefix?
That's how it works today, and it's a simple and predictable way to act
for this command.
> Overall, pop-to-buffer seems more common than pop-to-buffer-same-window.
Well, I think it depends on the command, really. If it's a command
that's usually used to pop up a new secondary window while you're still
expected to keep on working in the current buffer later, then we pop,
otherwise we switch. And `M-x shell' is in the "switch" category --
it's a "new action", not "something I'm doing for a bit before going
back to this buffer".
> The downside of using it, though, is that the current window is
> unlikely to be used even if the buffer is not displayed anywhere else
> (the algorithm chooses something like LRU window). Maybe we should
> choose a mode of operation where it does use the current window,
> unless the buffer is displayed somewhere else.
>
> Something like
>
> (pop-to-buffer buffer
> '((display-buffer-reuse-window
> display-buffer-same-window)
> (inhibit-same-window . nil)))
I think that's more unpredictable. What happens currently is very regular.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-26 11:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-13 16:16 bug#52467: 29.0.50; Use pop-to-buffer for shell Steingold
2021-12-13 21:14 ` Dmitry Gutov
2021-12-14 8:19 ` Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
2021-12-19 13:14 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-12-19 23:34 ` Dmitry Gutov
[not found] ` <CADwFkm=60K=ttDtK+z5v1Ch=qDUbng42jkyzV-7vLeC8zKLq6A@mail.gmail.com>
2021-12-20 10:17 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-12-24 0:38 ` Sam Steingold
2021-12-24 0:51 ` Dmitry Gutov
2021-12-24 9:07 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-12-26 0:47 ` Dmitry Gutov
2021-12-26 11:35 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen [this message]
2021-12-26 15:37 ` Dmitry Gutov
2021-12-26 17:00 ` Sam Steingold
2021-12-27 9:32 ` jakanakaevangeli
2021-12-27 12:01 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-12-14 15:59 ` jakanakaevangeli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87a6gnzjhm.fsf@gnus.org \
--to=larsi@gnus.org \
--cc=52467@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=dgutov@yandex.ru \
--cc=sds@gnu.org \
--cc=stefan@marxist.se \
--cc=theo@thornhill.no \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.