Re: switch-to-buffer: for interactive use only

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

>> PS: BTW, I think the interactive use of switch-to-buffer is "the second
>> case" (and should hence call pop-to-buffer-same-window).
> If this refers to the two cases cited above, then I think that the
> interactive use of `switch-to-buffer' is "the first case" and should not
> call `pop-to-buffer-same-window'.

At least when called from a minibuffer-only frame, C-x b should pretty
clearly use pop-to-buffer(-same-window) rather than signal an error.

> 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).


        Stefan