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

From: martin rudalics <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:05:00 +0200

> I think some applications (where such exceptions make sense) by default
 > should ignore split-width-threshold and let `pop-to-buffer' to split
 > vertically.  And window.el should provide a simple user option to define
 > these exceptions that will specify how to split windows based on the
 > buffer names similar to `same-window-buffer-names'.  For instance,
 >
 > (defcustom split-window-buffer-names
 >            '(("*Calendar*" . vertically)
 >              (" *Marked Files*" . vertically))

Is there a good reason why these applications should endure the present
heuristics of `pop-to-buffer' in the first place?  Shouldn't *Marked
Files* appear beneath the window where the marking took place?  That
latter window might not be the largest one and is almost certainly not
the LRU one, so the *Marked Files* window might not show up in a very
suitable place anyway.  I suppose the *Marked Files* window should be
obtained by first trying to deterministically split the window where the
marking took place and only when splitting fails have `pop-to-buffer'
find a suitable window.

So what I really need to know is how you (1) expect this to work
ideally, and (2) how to proceed when (1) fails.

As for the *Calendar* window I thought that Glenn wanted to do some
side-by-side splitting first because of the wasted space in a frame-wide
*Calendar* window.  So your proposal wouldn't help in this case.

martin