Re: [display-buffer] a way to make it behave as before?

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

martin rudalics wrote:
[...]
> There was a remnant of my test settings in the default value of the
> pop-up-frame specifier: I made any new frame created this way
> unsplittable.  So this is part of the behavior you see.  Currently, I
> can reproduce the "display on another frame" behavior iff I make the
> selected window small enough and all other windows on this frame
> unusable.  Please try once more.

What does `unusable' mean?

[...]
> If I prepend a (reuse-window nil nil nil) specifier to the first entry
> in `display-buffer-alist' the selected window gets reused (with the old
> unsplittable frame behavior).

Verified.  It's not what I want, though.  I only want `C-x 4 f'
to split the current window or to use the other window within
the frame as exactly the same as old Emacsen do.

That the new `display-buffer' and friends are useful is beyond
doubt, but I can imagine people will be getting flustered for
the new behavior sooner or later.  For instance, someone in Japan
asked for a help last night; a frame that BBDB makes is too large,
a frame used to compose a mail is too small, etc.  We can't support
all of them, can we?  So, you'd better make `display-buffer-alist'
default to `conservative' or provide a switch that enables a user
to make `display-buffer' behave as before completely, I think.

BTW, shouldn't the default size of a newly created frame follow
that of `emacs -Q' or `C-x 5 2' ?  I feel 80x24 is too small.

Regards,