Subject: bug#52467: 29.0.50; Use pop-to-buffer for shell

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2021 12:35:49 +0100

Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]> writes:

> Or to approach the question from another angle, the difference between
> that behavior and the current one is that you can create two windows
> that show the same buffer. Do we want that to happen with 'M-x shell'
> without prefix?

That's how it works today, and it's a simple and predictable way to act
for this command.

> Overall, pop-to-buffer seems more common than pop-to-buffer-same-window.

Well, I think it depends on the command, really.  If it's a command
that's usually used to pop up a new secondary window while you're still
expected to keep on working in the current buffer later, then we pop,
otherwise we switch.  And `M-x shell' is in the "switch" category --
it's a "new action", not "something I'm doing for a bit before going
back to this buffer".

> The downside of using it, though, is that the current window is
> unlikely to be used even if the buffer is not displayed anywhere else
> (the algorithm chooses something like LRU window). Maybe we should
> choose a mode of operation where it does use the current window,
> unless the buffer is displayed somewhere else.
>
> Something like
>
>     (pop-to-buffer buffer
>                    '((display-buffer-reuse-window
>                       display-buffer-same-window)
>                      (inhibit-same-window . nil)))

I think that's more unpredictable.  What happens currently is very regular.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no