Ship Mints writes: > 1. ( ) text/plain (*) text/html > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 12:46 AM Thierry Volpiatto wrote: > > Ship Mints writes: > > >     Which bookmark handlers? > > > > At least these packages rely on bookmarks that store window state and > > their handlers restore window state.  There are workarounds I have > > considered but they are distasteful, to say the least. > > > > bufferlo > > activities > > burly > > After a quick look at source code of activities I see that it tries hard > to fix the bug this change fixed, there is even comments, so I suggest > these packages adapt their bookmark code to new bookmark--jump-via, IMO > this will reduce the code and make it simpler. > > Thanks for taking a look.  Those are just the ones that immediately came to mind.  There may be many other users.  I stand by my suggestions that we either or both: > > - Add defcustoms and/or defvars to control this new behavior that breaks bookmarks.  bookmarks are *not* documented to be merely for files, not documented to avoid window and frame > behavior (some of our bookmarks also perform frame operations compounding the issue with this new behavior). > > - Add bookmark-record properties/keys to control bookmark behavior so that bookmark-record-make functions can decide for themselves which behavior to trigger. The old behavior was wrong, working by chance in many places, so no I don't think bookmark handlers should relay on it anymore. > - Add a defustom to set the default display-func so that pop-to-buffer-same-window can be overridden.  I consider that this is missing as an oversight in the implementation that does not > forbid common use cases for which bookmarks have been adopted. > > I'm happy to submit patches for this to make everyone's bookmark use more general and less painful.  In the same vein, I've submitted patches to correct an oversight in window-state-get > that makes using bookmark-records that contain window-state objects more reliable. > > Don't you agree this is a better approach than a wholesale behavior change? No, I still think you should fix your code according to the new behavior. The old bookmark handlers (yours included) are implemented on a buggy bookmark--jump-via, they should be rewrited to fit with new code. But this is just my opinion, let see what others think. -- Thierry