RE: [External] : Pop-up-windows vs display-buffer-take-action

[Drew Adams]

> > > > `pop-up-windows' shouldn't have been deprecated.
> > >
> > > Are we now going to pick up fights lost 12 years
> > > ago?  Really?
> >
> > Not picking any fights.  Expressing my sadness
> > that this happened.  (But you lifted my spirits
> > by suggesting/hinting (?), below, that it's
> > _not_ deprecated.)
> >
> > > And where do you see that this variable is deprecated, btw?
> >
> > You're right that I didn't see the word
> > "deprecated" as such.  If you think
> > "deprecated" is not meant, so much the better.
> > Glad to hear that.
> >
> > To be clearer, the (28.2) doc string says this:
> >
> >  This variable is provided mainly for backward
> >  compatibility and should not be used in new code.
> >  To make 'display-buffer' behave as if this were t,
> >  customize 'display-buffer-base-action' instead.
> 
> That doesn't sound like deprecation to me.

Good to know.  It sounded like it to me.

So then what was the "fight" "lost 12 years
ago"?  Did it have anything at all to do
with this thread?

It can't have been about that addition (in
Emacs 28) to the doc string.  Emacs 28 was
released only a year ago. 

> > What I pointed out wrt referring to 
> > "used in new code" stands.
> 
> That's a recommendation, nothing more, nothing less.

But just what's being recommended to users
about this option?

It doesn't just recommend to use option
`display-buffer-base-action' instead.

It specifically says that user option
`pop-up-windows' "should not be used in
new code."  What does it mean to "use" a
user option in code?  And whose "new code"
is it talking about - code by users of the
option?

Are we recommending to users of option
`pop-up-windows" not to use it in new code
(whatever that might mean)?  Or are we just
recommending to users to use
`display-buffer-base-action' instead of
option `pop-up-windows'?

Do you perhaps see the statement about not
using `pop-up-windows' in new code as
meaningless, and think it should be removed?

If not, do you at least see that it's not
clear?  If so, please consider clarifying
what's meant by use of the option in code.
____

In any case, T.V. Raman's point/request was
this (which I've also requested in the past):

  that newer option appears much more complex
  to configure;  a recipe for getting
  something close to the old pop-up-windows t
  would be nice.

Indeed.  How to get that behavior, or even
close to it, with `display-buffer-base-action'?
That's never been answered, to my knowledge.

If `pop-up-windows' can do what it does then
the all-inclusive, enhanced `display-buffer'
paraphernalia should also be able to do it, no?

And in particular, we should be able to then
offer users a simple Boolean option or mode
(or at least close to it) to do that, based
on the `display-buffer' scaffolding, no?

So far, I think the answer given has been,
alas, "no".  And yet we tell users to use
`display-buffer-base-action' as a substitute?

If Emacs can't do it, how do we expect users
to do it?