Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications

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

> IIUC.  Stefan's proposal, as can be seen from the code above, now is to do

> (O . (OL UL AL DL))
> (U . (OL UL AL DL))
> (A . (OL UL AL DL))
> (D . (OL UL AL DL))

> which IMHO isn't TRT since, for example, the entries in OL might not
> make sense in the context of the functions in U, A and D.

This was a conscious choice on my part.  It does introduce potential for
problems, indeed, but it also introduces potential for more flexibility.
Basically it means that parameter names have to be chosen more
carefully: when beneficial the same name should be used and when not
parameter names should use "private" names.  E.g. `window' is probably
not a good parameter name because it's likely to mean completely
different things for O U A and D.

E.g. the original motivation for early params to be passed to later
functions (contrary to your current code) is for the
`not-this-window' parameter which will usually be specified by AL
and handled by D.


        Stefan