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.