Re: why pop-to-buffer has this ugly behavior?

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

> It is not the job of pop-to-buffer to decide on the buffer-name when to split
> but it is the job of libraries like cus-edit.el to decide this.

Separation of concern implies that cus-edit should not need to care and
should not decide whether to split a window or create a new frame.
It should be decided by the user's preference.

Now, the bhavior of pop-to-buffer is sufficiently complex and customizable
that I can't tell you why you see this difference, but it does not only
depend on the buffer name but also on the current window (whether it's
a minibuffer or a dedicated window, for example).

> BTW: here is how XEmacs implements custom-create-buffer - IMO the right way:

This way [i.e. using switch-to-buffer] breaks when called from the
minibuffer, breaks when called from a dedicated window, and might not
correspond to the user's preference.

If all code used pop-to-buffer, ECB could solve all its problems by only
customizing pop-to-buffer, so it obviously does not inherently make things
hard for ECB-like libraries, quite the opposite.


        Stefan