bug#5036: marked as done (23.1.50; Unexpected minibuffer tab completion behavior)

[Emacs bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:50:39 -0800
with message-id <d791b8790911241750h74ba8a83g50004f2700075f0c@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Bad bug
has caused the Emacs bug report #5036,
regarding 23.1.50; Unexpected minibuffer tab completion behavior
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com
immediately.)


-- 
5036: http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=5036
Emacs Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: 23.1.50; Unexpected minibuffer tab completion behavior
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:08:29 -0800
>
>
>
>
> It seems like the unexpected buffer switching is because the
> 'dedicated' flag on the temporary window created for *Completions* is
> getting cleared by set-window-buffer.
>
> My understanding of the situation so far is:
>
>   - The `(with-output-to-temp-buffer "*Completions*" ...)' form in
> minibuffer-completion-help results in `display-buffer' being called
> with `display-buffer-mark-dedicated' bound to `soft'.
>   - The `(and pop-up-windows ...)' clause of `display-buffer' is
> evaluated*, and calls `(set-window-dedicated-p window-to-use 'soft)'.
>   - However, the `window--display-buffer-2' call then calls
> `set-window-buffer', which sets `w->dedicated = Qnil'.
>   - Later, when `(bury-buffer)' is called to hide the minibuffer help,
> it sees the window is not dedicated, so it switches to a new buffer
> instead of killing the window.
>
> (* I haven't bothered yet to look into why that particular clause is
> evaluated, but I don't think it matters; it's just the one that
> stepping through the code took me to.)
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Bad bug
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:50:39 -0800
>
>
>
>
> Sorry, this message was meant to be added as a comment to #5030 instead.
>
> --- End Message ---