GNU bug report logs - #33870
27.0.50; xref-goto-xref not configurable

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
To: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>
Cc: 33870 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, joaotavora <at> gmail.com, dgutov <at> yandex.ru
Subject: bug#33870: 27.0.50; xref-goto-xref not configurable
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 01:40:41 +0200

>>>> I propose to remove this function and replace its parts with
>>>> more alists, i.e. this blob
>>>>
>>>>                                `(,(if temp-buffer-resize-mode
>>>> 		                    '(window-height . resize-temp-buffer-window)
>>>> 	                          '(window-height . fit-window-to-buffer))
>>>> 	                       ,(when temp-buffer-resize-mode
>>>> 	                          '(preserve-size . (nil . t))))
>>>>
>>>> with something shorter like `(fit-to-buffer . t)'
>>>
>>> Can't we add this via a special value for the 'window-height' alist
>>> entry?  Where we explicitly state that it obeys
>>> 'temp-buffer-resize-mode' if that is active and the buffer qualifies
>>> as temporary and so on ...  Or is that what you mean already?
>>
>> I meant to make it shorter in any possible way, so using something like
>> '(window-height . resize)' seems to achieve this goal.
>
> 'resize' is too short IMHO.  'resize-to-fit' maybe.

Good name.

>> Exactly.  There is a long list of actions in display-buffer--maybe-at-bottom
>> before calling the main action 'display-buffer-at-bottom', so it makes sense
>> to move them somewhere to a common place.
>
> But running a "fallback" action before the others doesn't sound very
> intuitive.

Maybe some more suitable name for actions to add between
display-buffer-overriding-action and user-action?

>>> We could abuse the existing 'side' action alist entry for
>>> not-atomic, non-side windows in the following sense: If 'side' equals
>>> 'bottom', a window is eligible for reuse if and only if it appears on
>>> that side of the frame.  To be obeyed by 'display-buffer-reuse-window'
>>> and 'display-buffer-in-previous-window', I presume.  WDYT?
>>
>> This makes sense.  Even more, maybe it would be possible to use only
>> an alist '(side . bottom)' instead of specyfying the action
>> 'display-buffer--maybe-at-bottom'?

Or '(direction . bottom) or shorter '(dir . bottom)
compatible with terminology of window-in-direction
because the word "side" is associated with side windows.

> We could use the six abbreviations we have ('left', 'top', 'above',
> 'right', 'bottom' and 'below') to make a window on the respective side
> either of the selected window or the frame.  Then we would need one
> action function say 'display-buffer-beside' and yet another action
> alist entry say 'beside' with the values 'selected' (on any side of
> the selected window), 'main' (on any side of the main window) and a
> window (on which side this would have to be created).

Maybe better 'frame' instead of 'main'?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.