From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Klaus Berndl Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: why pop-to-buffer has this ugly behavior? Date: 22 Jan 2004 20:13:17 +0100 Organization: "sd&m AG, Muenchen, Germany" Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1074799137 13613 80.91.224.253 (22 Jan 2004 19:18:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:18:57 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 22 20:18:53 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AjkLt-0004XB-00 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:18:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AjkKa-000699-Vj for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:17:32 -0500 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!lnewsoutpeer01.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!lnewsinpeer01.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!news.sdm.de!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 44 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: sachrang.muc.sdm.de Original-X-Trace: news.sdm.de 1074798796 8196 193.102.181.40 (22 Jan 2004 19:13:16 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.sdm.de Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:13:16 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:120334 X-Originally-To: Stefan Monnier Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:16278 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.help:16278 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