From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Prefer to split along the longest edge
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 19:44:04 +0200
Organization: LINKOV.NET
Message-ID: <87ikrjfrq3.fsf@mail.linkov.net>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214";
	logging-data="32769"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/31.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Cc: Nicolas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Despr=E8s?= <nicolas.despres@gmail.com>,
 emacs-devel@gnu.org
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 16 18:45:42 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 1tNFA6-0008Nu-Mp
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2024 18:45:42 +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 1tNF9W-0000zB-PH; Mon, 16 Dec 2024 12:45:06 -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 <juri@linkov.net>) id 1tNF9V-0000yX-D3
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2024 12:45:05 -0500
Original-Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <juri@linkov.net>)
 id 1tNF9T-0004f4-Pl; Mon, 16 Dec 2024 12:45:05 -0500
Original-Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E788E0005;
 Mon, 16 Dec 2024 17:44:58 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <86pllrpn2p.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 16 Dec
 2024 19:14:22 +0200")
X-GND-Sasl: juri@linkov.net
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.70.183.196; envelope-from=juri@linkov.net;
 helo=relay4-d.mail.gandi.net
X-Spam_score_int: -25
X-Spam_score: -2.6
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001,
 SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
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:326556
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/326556>

>> 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.