[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place
From: |
martin rudalics |
Subject: |
bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:04:56 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) |
>>> I think some applications (where such exceptions make sense) by default
>>> should ignore split-width-threshold and let `pop-to-buffer' to split
>>> vertically. And window.el should provide a simple user option to define
>>> these exceptions that will specify how to split windows based on the
>>> buffer names similar to `same-window-buffer-names'. For instance,
>>>
>>> (defcustom split-window-buffer-names
>>> '(("*Calendar*" . vertically)
>>> (" *Marked Files*" . vertically))
>> Is there a good reason why these applications should endure the present
>> heuristics of `pop-to-buffer' in the first place? Shouldn't *Marked
>> Files* appear beneath the window where the marking took place? That
>> latter window might not be the largest one and is almost certainly not
>> the LRU one, so the *Marked Files* window might not show up in a very
>> suitable place anyway. I suppose the *Marked Files* window should be
>> obtained by first trying to deterministically split the window where the
>> marking took place and only when splitting fails have `pop-to-buffer'
>> find a suitable window.
>
> That's what I actually meant and what `dired-pop-to-buffer' already does.
`dired-pop-to-buffer' explicitly specifies that it wants to split the
selected window. Your defcustom does not specifiy _which_ window to
split.
>> So what I really need to know is how you (1) expect this to work
>> ideally, and (2) how to proceed when (1) fails.
>
> I think the current behavior of `dired-pop-to-buffer' is ideal in this
> regard. We just have to generalize it and move its logic to window.el
> to allow other applications to use the same logic.
For that purpose we would have to specify (1) which window should be
split preferably and (2) how to split that window.
>> As for the *Calendar* window I thought that Glenn wanted to do some
>> side-by-side splitting first because of the wasted space in a frame-wide
>> *Calendar* window. So your proposal wouldn't help in this case.
>
> We should not decide on behalf of the user what window space is wasted
> and fill it with some arbitrary buffers.
I agree. We're in a lose-lose situation here. Popping up a separate
frame would be probably better here.
martin
- bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place, (continued)
- bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place, martin rudalics, 2009/10/19
- bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/19
- bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place, martin rudalics, 2009/10/19
- bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/19
- bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place, martin rudalics, 2009/10/20
- bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/20
- bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place, martin rudalics, 2009/10/20
- bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/20
- bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place, martin rudalics, 2009/10/16
- bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place, Juri Linkov, 2009/10/16
- bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place,
martin rudalics <=
- bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place, Glenn Morris, 2009/10/16
- bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/16
- bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place, Glenn Morris, 2009/10/06
- bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place, Juri Linkov, 2009/10/06