From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: switch-to-buffer: for interactive use only Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:46:26 -0400 Message-ID: References: <0aiprg76eu.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87hb6zt8rg.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <8739ihlsry.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4E16A728.5040002@gmx.at> <4E170E48.5040408@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1310141409 24507 80.91.229.12 (8 Jul 2011 16:10:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:10:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Chong Yidong , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 08 18:10:05 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QfDcy-0000Qj-Sn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 18:10:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58549 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QfDcy-0004yR-12 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:10:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46216) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QfDGA-0007aP-7B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:46:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QfDG8-0008Co-M7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:46:29 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:26771 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QfDG8-0008Ce-AV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:46:28 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAGslF05MCqt8/2dsb2JhbABSp0V4iHvCHoY4BJ59hC8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,499,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="123784391" Original-Received: from 76-10-171-124.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.171.124]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 08 Jul 2011 11:46:26 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 8750959160; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:46:26 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <4E170E48.5040408@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:03:52 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:141801 Archived-At: >>> No. `pop-to-buffer-same-window' doesn't use the selected window if it's >>> weakly dedicated. Think of making a window dedicated as a poor man's >>> way of saying "leave this window alone unless I explicitly want to show >>> another buffer in it". >> That's a mistake: if the window is fully dedicated, that's right, but if >> it's weakly dedicated, pop-to-buffer-same-window should override the >> weak dedication, like switch-to-buffer does (otherwise, there would >> never be any difference between the two forms of dedication). > Do you want to change this in the sense that both `switch-to-buffer' and > `pop-to-buffer-same-window' should reuse a weakly dedicated window? Yes. > In that case I'd obviously agree with Chong that there's no real > difference between the two. > So we should make `switch-to-buffer' do what it has always done (just > that now it's more fully customizable). I'm not sure what "what it has always done" refers to. What it used to do in Emacs-22 (and does again right now) or what it used to do in Emacs-23? > I'm not sure though whether you > would want to make `display-buffer' reuse weakly dedicated windows too? No, indeed, not display-buffer. Stefan