Subject: Re: bug#20189: 25.0.50; Feature request: Alternative split-window-sensibly functions

From: martin rudalics <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:30:06 +0100

>>> With that and a maximized frame of size 269x82, I'd eventually end up
 >>> with three side-by-side windows each of size 86x82.
 >>
 >> Interesting.  What is your value of `window-combination-resize'?
 >
 > I didn't know that, so it has the default value nil.

Then how comes you "eventually end up with three side-by-side windows
each of size 86x82"?  By default you should get one window with 135
columns and two windows with 67 columns, approximately.

 > Reading its docs I
 > get the impression that I want that to be t instead, and to have it
 > effective, I'd also need to set `window-combination-limit' to nil.
 >
 > But with
 >
 >    (setq window-combination-resize t
 >          window-combination-limit nil) ;; was window-size before
 >
 > and a single 269x82 window, I still get a horizontal split first
 > (forming a horizontal combination IIUC) and then a vertical split.

Yes - these are unrelated.  `split-window-sensibly' controls the
"split-direction".

I share most of your concerns.  But I'm not sure though where to put
a/the solution.

martin