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: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 08:33:46 -0500 Message-ID: <jwvwmucd0mq.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> <jwvv89xesho.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <69e6899b-9e93-9a97-a8bc-4ce9a9f0ae4c@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="11920"; 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 Mon Nov 20 14:35:18 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 1r54Qo-0002uS-0g for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 14:35:18 +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 1r54QY-0003sD-NK; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 08:35:02 -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 1r54QW-0003rv-EH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 08:35:01 -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 1r54QW-0002nO-3y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 08:35:00 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1r54QX-0001jr-Ri for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 08:35:01 -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: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:35:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.67249.B67249.17004872416597@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=B67249.17004872416597 (code B ref 67249); Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:35:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 67249) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Nov 2023 13:34:01 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52806 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1r54PZ-0001iD-26 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 08:34:01 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:25930) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>) id 1r54PU-0001ht-Gy for 67249@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 08:33:59 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 80CA6441331; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 08:33:48 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1700487227; bh=KO93ErBOJiXsiuhgZDZxPcn/TNCP0LIZTDA28uDK5jw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=FJCWd+0u+cAlm8VBYTEUZPcd7B9U7TK2A7QlqZ8Yi2lIqnZEaALXglhNLPQv+b2oH jSBTzAiVuFePBeuBNy7rVqvz4RqvRtUnku6D+vCfNEvkn+95/dYVZF71Q4YUl+NREb qedGQenIEI6hg1INN5oXfwvD9olGwde3pLO5NGh6rmmdHqGiYyUe7l1bYSHCwE9Cwd Pjt+EhQxYErZrJbr4Q5Nb1s8I/fqBashbmj5qAm5FAvMUS3PaPZISOlMqgxq/rxsZa XvFySiYnPsQFdH2qv0gOHveOr71/aC1PggWTK2ZcS4AciRLVpB7GjTbh+3/A0C0xKn /F6vGXxDyoPxw== Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2FA624412B1; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 08:33:47 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.227.120]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0AE851202E0; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 08:33:47 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <69e6899b-9e93-9a97-a8bc-4ce9a9f0ae4c@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:15:55 +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:274665 Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs/274665> > BTW creating a new frame is always one last resort of 'display-buffer'. That depends on the rest of the config, AFAIK. I tried the patch I sent on some of my config and it did have an effect (e.g. when I open `M-x calendar`, depending the `same-frame` I either get one frame with *Calendar* and another with `diary` or I get a single frame with both. Both windows are dedicated). >> 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 :-) > > So a (same-frame . t) entry would simply auto-translate to a pair of > (reusable-frames . nil) (lru-frames . nil) entries? [ Hmm... I'm curious how you interpreted what I wrote to reach that conclusion. ] No, I meant the opposite: the users who want to override `reusable-frames` and `lru-frames` need to add all three (same-frame . t) (reusable-frames . nil) (lru-frames . nil) >> 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. > > We could add a 'display-buffer--same-frame-action' variable. I don't really know what that suggestion means. The `--` suggests it'd be some internal detail of `window.el` whereas I thought we're discussing the externally visible API and semantics. >>> 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. > It means a change in existing code. Till now, applications were on the > safe side in this regard since they could always blame others for using > an obsolete feature. I don't see why you think it'd require any change in existing code: the ones who set `same-frame` get what they ask for. >> 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). > > Do you anywhere see 'display-buffer' choose a minibuffer-only frame? I'm not talking about `display-buffer` choosing a minibuffer-only frame. I'm saying that when the selected-frame is a minibuffer-only frame, it's OK to ignore the `same-frame` request. Stefan