GNU bug report logs - #67249
30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`

Previous Next

Full log

Message #47 received at 67249 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>
Cc: 67249 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for
 `display-buffer-alist`
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:51:54 -0500

>> +(defun display-buffer--pop-up-frame (buffer alist)
>> +  "Like `display-buffer--pop-up-frame' but ignores `inhibit-new-frame'.
> This seems to have an extra "-".

Indeed, thanks.

>> PS: Am I the only one who finds it confusing how some functions
>> named `display-buffer-<foo>` are meant to be used from the ACTIONs
>> (i.e. from within `display-buffer`) while others are implemented on top
>> of `display-buffer` (and thus should not be used within ACTIONS)?
>> Could we try and find a clear naming convention to distinguish the two,
>> or am I even more confused than I thought and several of those functions
>> can be used either way?
>
> Do you mean 'display-buffer-override-next-command' and
> 'display-buffer-record-window'?

I mostly noticed `display-buffer-other-frame` whose name (to me)
suggests it can be used in an ACTION.  The two you cite could be
considered as colliding, but since their name doesn't suggest they're
going to "display a buffer", they didn't bother me.

Hmm... after looking a bit more maybe it's not that bad, since the
calling convention can be used to distinguish them
(e.g. `display-buffer-other-frame` doesn't take an ALIST after the
BUFFER).


        Stefan

Previous Next

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