bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`

[Stefan Monnier]

>> We could, but we could also define the semantics of `same-frame` to have
>> no effect on frame re-use (it would actually be closer to the current
>> semantics).  If so, it'd be best to find another name for it along the
>> lines of "no-new-frame".
> Agreed.  'inhibit-pop-up-frame' or 'inhibit-new-frame' would be more in
> accordance with 'inhibit-same-window' and 'inhibit-switch-frame'.

I like `inhibit-new-frame`, thanks.

>>>>> We could add a 'display-buffer--same-frame-action' variable.
>>>> I don't really know what that suggestion means.
>>>> The `--` suggests it'd be some internal detail of `window.el` whereas
>>>> I thought we're discussing the externally visible API and semantics.
>>> It could do what I meant above - translate 'same-frame' internally.
>> What is "it"?  `display-buffer--same-frame-action`?
>> Without knowing where you'd use such a variable, it's hard for me to
>> guess what you mean by that.
> It would be similar to 'display-buffer--same-window-action' and
> 'display-buffer--other-frame-action' and could be used in the same way.

These are just implementation details of `switch-to-buffer-other-frame`,
`display-buffer-other-frame`, `pop-to-buffer-same-window`, ...

So, it would still require the introduction of something like
`display-buffer-same-frame` to make use of it.

> But I'm not familiar with these variables

I guess only Chong is familiar with them, then 🙁

> and the customization types that use them (IIRC either you or Chong
> invented them).

The customization type is not used for them (they are internal
variables, not user-facing nor Customizable).

>> So you think the patch I sent is actually more-or-less acceptable
>> (modulo documentation and finding a better name)?
> Yes.

OK, I'll try and get it into an acceptable shape, then.

> If OT1H 'same-frame' is ignored when the selected frame is a
> minibuffer-only frame (so a new frame gets popped up instead) and OTOH
> the remaining action functions do use the last non-minibuffer frame in
> such case, then the behavior of 'display-buffer' is inconsistent in my
> regard.

Ah, yes, I see.
IIUC, the "inhibit-new-frame" semantics seems less susceptible to this
problem then the "same-frame", no?


        Stefan