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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>, "67249 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <67249 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2023 17:52:05 -0500

Hi Drew,

I have no idea what you're talking about.  Please double check
that you actually understand what the patch is doing (and take the
`Subject:` of this bug report as a good hint for the intended use),
and then clarify your argument.

For example, `pop-up-frames` is not deprecated.


        Stefan


Drew Adams [2023-12-09 22:40:00] wrote:

> +** New 'pop-up-frames' action alist entry for 'display-buffer'.
> +This has the same effect as the variable of the same name and takes
>                                  ^^^^^^^^
> +precedence over the variable when present.
>
> Please don't do that.  This is a user option,
> _not_ just a variable.  (And yes, it should
> continue to be supported, forever, regardless
> of the fact that it's been "deprecated".)
>
> `display-buffer' shouldn't override the user's
> choice for the behavior.
>
> From my point of view it's OK for a given
> command to override a user option, but only
> if the command's doc tells users that it does
> that.
>
> And a command can do that just by binding the
> option to nil.  Please don't let a parameter
> to `display-buffer' override this handy, simple
> user option.

Previous Next

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