GNU bug report logs - #8911
bs-cycle-next deletes window in some cases.

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>

Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:03:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>
Cc: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>, 8911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#8911: bs-cycle-next deletes window in some cases.
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:27:22 -0400
>> I'm not sure about the third (isn't it also fixed by passing a non-nil
>> arg to bury-buffer?)
> Well, yes, but that means "fixing" it everywhere; I mean:
> emacs -Q
> M-: (set-window-dedicated-p (selected-window) t) <RET>
> M-x bury-buffer <RET>
> and the frame is iconified.  It shouldn't.

As mentioned earlier, maybe the single-frame case is special, but I'd
really first like to know how you get into such a state.  For any other
case, M-x bury-buffer RET *should* iconify the current frame if it shows
a single dedicated window (with the caveat that Drew wants it to delete
the frame instead).

> If switch-to-buffer is changed not to fallback on pop-to-buffer, why
> shouldn't it be called from elisp?

Because 99% of the calls are wrong (they just want to display
a specific buffer and the author did not consider what should happen if
called in a minibuffer-only frame or in a dedicated window).

> In the case of bs-cycle-next:

>         (unless (window-dedicated-p (selected-window))
>           ;; We don't want the frame iconified if the only window in the frame
>           ;; happens to be dedicated
>           (bury-buffer (current-buffer)))
>         (switch-to-buffer next)

> the current switch-to-buffer causes the unwanted-splitting behavior.
> Changing it to pop-to-buffer-same-window, as its docstring suggests,
> would still cause the same problem.

Yes, bs-cycle-next would be one of the very rare cases where calling
switch-to-buffer is the right thing to do.


        Stefan




This bug report was last modified 13 years and 324 days ago.

Previous Next


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