Subject: bug#1806: dired-pop-to-buffer in wrong place

From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:19:27 -0500

>>> But none of these provide the behavior wanted by Juri.  He wants to
>>> split the selected window which runs counter to the `pop-up-frames'
>>> non-nil ideology.
>> `same-frame' provides some of the behavior he wants.  If the user who
>> sets pop-up-frames is disappointed that it doesn't bring up a frame, she
>> can set her special-display-buffer-name so as to override that
>> `same-frame' attribute.
> That's not what I meant.  The old `dired-pop-to-buffer' did split the
> window regardless of what `pop-up-frames' was set to and Juri wants to
> get the old behavior back.  The question is whether we want
> `pop-up-frames' non-nil override that.  Currently, `pop-up-frames'
> non-nil does bring up a separate frame.

I think either behavior is acceptable as long as it can be overridden by
the user (via special-display-buffer-names).  Reproducing the previous
behavior (of ignoring pop-up-frames) is probably the safer option, and
it at least would suit my use-pattern better as well (I do have
pop-up-frames set to t but would rather not have a new frame created for
those dired-lists unless I explicitly set one up in
special-display-buffer-names with a specific geometry).

        Stefan