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: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:54:18 +0300 Organization: JURTA Message-ID: <87sk56sg6x.fsf@mail.jurta.org> References: <4BB4CF6B.2000007@alice.it> <87zl0rtmqy.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1275422603 10686 80.91.229.12 (1 Jun 2010 20:03:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 20:03:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , Emacs To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 01 22:03:21 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 1OJXgD-0003B7-DS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:03:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38505 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OJXgC-0002oo-Rz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:03:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42658 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OJXg4-0002kn-1F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:03:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJXg1-0004u6-LE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:03:07 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp-out1.starman.ee ([85.253.0.3]:57340 helo=mx1.starman.ee) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJXg1-0004te-Bl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:03:05 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by Amavisd-New at mx1.starman.ee Original-Received: from mail.starman.ee (82.131.54.11.cable.starman.ee [82.131.54.11]) by mx1.starman.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B793F40D6; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 23:03:01 +0300 (EEST) In-Reply-To: <4C052F8C.8030208@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:04:28 +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:125435 Archived-At: >> So you're saying that C-x k's heuristic should be to try and restore >> the previous window state? I guess that could make sense, yes. > > I was saying that _if_ we want to fix the behavior to handle Juri's > case, we'd have to call `other-buffer' with VISIBLE_OK non-nil (or > something the like). 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). >>> We could make this customizable. >> >> No, we want instead to try and think in each case which behavior would >> make more sense. > > We probably all agree that a window should not show a buffer visible > elsewhere when its buffer is killed or buried and its window-local > buffer list contains no other buffer. Yes, without making this customizable, a simple rule could be to get next buffers from the window-local buffer-list when it is non-empty. > However, I'm afraid that there's no good approximation for the remaining > cases. There are people used to edit large buffers by showing related > sections in two or more windows. And there are people who don't do > that. [The latter group should not be affected much by the new behavior > since we expect them to never show the same buffer twice at the same > time. But I'm not sure whether the use of `split-window' runs counter > to such an assumption.] 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). -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/