GNU bug report logs - #64619
[PATCH] Add toggle-window-dedicated command

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Spencer Baugh <sbaugh <at> janestreet.com>

Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 15:40:02 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: patch

Done: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #77 received at 64619 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>
Cc: 64619 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, philipk <at> posteo.net, sbaugh <at> janestreet.com,
 sbaugh <at> catern.com, rudalics <at> gmx.at, drew.adams <at> oracle.com
Subject: Re: bug#64619: [PATCH] Add toggle-window-dedicated command
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2023 09:13:24 +0300
> Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2023 22:36:45 +0000
> From: Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>
> cc: Spencer Baugh <sbaugh <at> janestreet.com>, 
>     Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>, 64619 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 
>     martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 
>     Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> 
> 
> >
> > In fact, I initially used strong dedication in my patch.  But I found it 
> > annoying that I had to turn off strong dedication explicitly if I wanted 
> > to switch to another buffer.  That's what made me realize that weak 
> > dedication was better.
> >
> 
> It's not annoying, it's what dedication is for.  It's not more annoying 
> than using C-x C-q in a buffer, and later typing something in that buffer 
> and realizing (with a similar error message) that it doesn't work: you get 
> what you asked.
> 
> >
> > But C-x b doesn't use display buffer, and instead just errors when the 
> > current window is strongly dedicated, which I think is fairly useless 
> > behavior; the user reaction is almost always going to be annoyance 
> > followed by C-x w d and C-x b again. So I think weak dedication is 
> > better.
> >
> 
> If you think that's annoying, then I'd suggest setting the 
> switch-to-buffer-in-dedicated-window configuration option.  It's there for 
> a reason, and you can select between no less than four behaviors: one of 
> them is likely the one you want.

I think the reason that people disagree about the details is because
they have different use cases for this feature in mind.

To reconcile these two opinions, we could introduce a user option
which would invert the default: make strongly-dedicated the default
and weekly-dedicated the optional kind requiring C-u.

Alternatively, we could use switch-to-buffer-in-dedicated-window as
that user option: if the user sets it non-nil, we could take that as
an indication that they prefer the strongly-dedicated default.

WDYT?




This bug report was last modified 1 year and 259 days ago.

Previous Next


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