Re: why pop-to-buffer has this ugly behavior?

[Klaus Berndl <klaus.berndl@sdm.de>]

I have already sent a followup to my first posting where i apologize for my
noise - was my fault - have forgotten the existence of
`same-window-regexps'...

So again: Please excuse!
Klaus

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Stefan Monnier wrote:



> > It is not the job of pop-to-buffer to decide on the buffer-name when to
> > split but it is the job of libraries like cus-edit.el to decide this.
>  
>  Separation of concern implies that cus-edit should not need to care and
>  should not decide whether to split a window or create a new frame.
>  It should be decided by the user's preference.
>  
>  Now, the bhavior of pop-to-buffer is sufficiently complex and customizable
>  that I can't tell you why you see this difference, but it does not only
>  depend on the buffer name but also on the current window (whether it's
>  a minibuffer or a dedicated window, for example).
>  
> > BTW: here is how XEmacs implements custom-create-buffer - IMO the right
> > way:
>  
>  This way [i.e. using switch-to-buffer] breaks when called from the
>  minibuffer, breaks when called from a dedicated window, and might not
>  correspond to the user's preference.
>  
>  If all code used pop-to-buffer, ECB could solve all its problems by only
>  customizing pop-to-buffer, so it obviously does not inherently make things
>  hard for ECB-like libraries, quite the opposite.
>  
>  
>          Stefan

-- 
Klaus Berndl			mailto: klaus.berndl@sdm.de
sd&m AG				http://www.sdm.de
software design & management	
Carl-Wery-Str. 42, 81739 Muenchen, Germany
Tel +49 89 63812-392, Fax -220