From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Stefan Monnier via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
 the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs
Subject: bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:57:51 -0500
Message-ID: <jwvv89xesho.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>
References: <jwv34x4m50o.fsf@iro.umontreal.ca>
 <159cd3c2-a0c4-63e2-ebb2-ce0f5f8c343e@gmx.at>
 <jwv1qcmfm22.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>
 <cbc6a073-2718-7809-c85e-cf338341c712@gmx.at>
Reply-To: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214";
	logging-data="25364"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cc: 67249@debbugs.gnu.org
To: martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>
Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 19 15:59:17 2023
Return-path: <bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 <bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1r4jGW-0006Mi-9O
	for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 19 Nov 2023 15:59:16 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <bug-gnu-emacs-bounces@gnu.org>)
	id 1r4jGI-00032e-PA; Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:59:02 -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 <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1r4jGH-00032A-7A
 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:59:01 -0500
Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1r4jGG-00044X-VY
 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:59:00 -0500
Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1r4jGI-0000gZ-DR
 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:59:02 -0500
X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org
Resent-From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
Resent-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 14:59:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.67249.B67249.17004058842567@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 67249
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
Original-Received: via spool by 67249-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B67249.17004058842567
 (code B ref 67249); Sun, 19 Nov 2023 14:59:02 +0000
Original-Received: (at 67249) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Nov 2023 14:58:04 +0000
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51899 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1r4jFL-0000fC-H6
 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:58:04 -0500
Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:48286)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>) id 1r4jFJ-0000eP-37
 for 67249@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:58:02 -0500
Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AA281440B62;
 Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:57:53 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca;
 s=mail; t=1700405872;
 bh=FBCIVNDP+5UTPgW0zmXU9oluA1Ky4lr5FFypbC2RRIo=;
 h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From;
 b=A6jfP5nQ8iYHzrO7zc2JFBs+fL2SNwtg1vqlBD1HMXmFOqStxOflNQClLyZzFjg3q
 sM3bTh8f0/jv8te/MC+2VVUm34Zy/v0nx8FECnpH4h6Zzwxkw6Qq0ukMc7azvR1Zh7
 TBfIUtLrB6w/PVSFuYDzAWeP10Fmuri8dKMc8KRJHv8El339WmqT/76guNiFSC0504
 4lU+NTw+0+MUUEnAXDflE3nY1cemiTRw+9DIfdtv6oQrSo+5VtFXZjc9BFDrdT0JLu
 eyT0oIPtZExGbDmhmgRTF9yd0MYdTF/jvvOvsTdVyh5lc+0XZulAM9YkxmE1KF4Xgr
 1Ch+PopAUC+kQ==
Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1])
 by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3AD65440452;
 Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:57:52 -0500 (EST)
Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.227.120])
 by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C5B4120352;
 Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:57:52 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <cbc6a073-2718-7809-c85e-cf338341c712@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's
 message of "Sun, 19 Nov 2023 11:35:06 +0100")
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
 the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-gnu-emacs>,
 <mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnu-emacs>,
 <mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org
Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:274621
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs/274621>

>> Are you referring to whether it's OK to (re)use a window on another
>> frame if it shows the buffer already?
> (Re)use any window on another frame.

Right, so it should probably have been called something like "no new
frame".

> The action alist is flat - whichever entry comes first is used even if
> it is not pertinent to the action chosen.  If the action chosen is say
> 'display-buffer-in-previous-window', the frames to investigate are
> currently specified by a 'reusable-frames' entry.  If no such entry is
> present, we could check for a 'same-frame' entry.  But what should
> 'display-buffer' do when both entries are present with 'same-frame'
> coming first?

I don't see a big problem here: we could choose `same-frame` to imply
that `reusable-frames` is nil, or we could choose to ignore
`same-frame`.  Since the code that adds `(same-frame . t)` could just as well
also add `(reusable-frames)`, the first choice is less flexible
than the second (tho it allows overriding a higher-precedence
`reusable-frames` setting), so I'd go with the first choice, which also
has the advantage of not requiring any code modification :-)

> And how would 'display-buffer-use-some-window' and
> 'display-buffer-use-least-recent-window' handle the similar case with a
> 'lru-frames' and a 'same-frame' entry both present?

Same reasoning here.

> If you want 'same-frame' to not prevail in these cases, you probably

I don't necessarily want a particular behavior.  I want to provide
a similar functionality, within the constraints of what we can define
and implement sanely.

So no, I don't necessarily want it to prevail over those other entries.

> mean that it should only inhibit popping up a new frame via
> 'display-buffer-pop-up-frame'.

That was my conclusion when I looked at the code (concretized in
my PoC patch).

Another approach is to provide a new action.
This could be a `display-buffer-same-frame` action which tries its best
to use the selected frame.
I suspect in many cases the actual intention of `same-frame` was to keep
the buffer nearby, so I suspect we could also replace `same-frame` with
a `display-buffer-nearby` action.

The advantage of an action is that we don't need to decide how existing
actions interact with it.

> Again applications that want to pop up a new frame would then have to
> provide a (same-frame . nil) entry.

That would seem fair game, IMO.

> The proof of this pudding is in clarifying the "if at all possible" and
> explaining any new special behavior in the manual.

I suspect the main exception would be minibuffer-only frames, but we
could get fancier if we feel like it (like when the selected frame can't
accommodate the `window-min-width` and `window-min-height`, or when we
set `inhibit-same-window` (or the selected window is dedicated) and the
frame's sole window can't be split).


        Stefan