Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I’ll test the display-buffer-base-action approach over the next couple of days, and if it works as I expect, I’ll update the Perspective README.
Note that Juri’s example is not quite the same as mine. Please test with this instead:
(customize-set-variable 'display-buffer-base-action
'((display-buffer-reuse-window display-buffer-same-window)
(reusable-frames . t)))
That said: it seems to me that rebinding display-buffer-overriding-action is intended for this very purpose: a judicious, rarely-used, and highly-targeted change to display-buffer behavior where it is imperative for the user’s customizations to not have an undesirable effect.
On Jul 8, 2021, 08:40 -0700, Trust me I am a Doctor <pillule@riseup.net>, wrote:
Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> writes:
Sorry, preventing the users from customizing windows is the wrong thing.
I don't know really, let me explain my rational : some users have a very
constrained display-buffer-alist and match ".*". You can see such
rational explained at the end of this page :
https://github.com/nex3/perspective-el
Thanks for the reference. Now I understand the reason for such absurdity
in org-mode:
(defmacro org-no-popups (&rest body)
"Suppress popup windows and evaluate BODY."
`(let (pop-up-frames display-buffer-alist)
,@body))
So different packages are fighting with each other:
one package recommends using display-buffer-alist to display
all buffers only in the same window, another package
throws away user customization on such grounds
that users might follow such poor recommendations.
To be fair, blaming the different repositories gives no evidence that
this macro is a reaction to perspective.el
I CC its maintainer,
Hi Constantine Vetoshev,
While we was discussing window configurations, I introduced the
recommendations of your README that I used to follow in a particular
situation; in regard of the remarks of Juri, you maybe want to update
them?
The correct way to display all buffers in the same window
is documented in (info "(emacs) Window Choice") where
display-buffer-base-action should be customized like this:
(customize-set-variable
'display-buffer-base-action
'((display-buffer-reuse-window display-buffer-same-window)))
And the problem is solved. So please avoid ignoring user customization
with display-buffer-overriding-action because users with such
display-buffer-base-action will be able to customize "*RE-Builder*" with
display-buffer-alist.
Ok you convinced me. Thanks for the tip, I installed it on a low-vision
setup of a knowledge of me. We will see more in detail the differences
that it implies.
So it seems that the patch of the Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:50:07 +0200
was indeed the one we want to keep.
I tested it again, with :
(customize-set-variable
'display-buffer-base-action
'((display-buffer-reuse-window display-buffer-same-window)))
(setf (alist-get "*RE-Builder*" display-buffer-alist nil nil #'string=)
`((display-buffer-in-direction)
(direction . top)
(dedicated . t)))
(re-builder)
And it obeys to display-buffer-alist, be it for an other
function or others parameters, and keep being functional ... etc.
--