[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The window-pub branch
From: |
martin rudalics |
Subject: |
Re: The window-pub branch |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:48:57 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) |
> Is it possible to have display-buffer-function back? (Or same
> functionality with new name if you prefer.)
From the doc-string of `display-buffer-names':
Any other symbol with a function definition means to call that
function to display the buffer. The function is called with two
arguments - the buffer to display and a list of specifiers - and
is supposed to display the buffer and return the window used for
that purpose. The function is also responsible for giving the
variable `display-buffer-window' and the
`quit-restore' parameter of the window used a meaningful value.
So why do you think it's gone? You can define
(defun display-buffer-in-other-window-on-same-frame (buffer specifiers)
(display-buffer
"*scratch*"
'(same-frame (reuse-buffer-window . nil) (not-this-window . t))))
and put this into `display-buffer-names' or `display-buffer-regexps' or
write
(display-buffer "*scratch*" 'display-buffer-in-other-window-on-same-frame)
> Also, is it possible to route any other functions that effect to
> displaying a buffer (such as switch-to-buffer) through display-buffer
> exclusively?
With the exception of `switch-to-buffer' all these route now through
`display-buffer'. I could add an option to have `switch-to-buffer'
route through `display-buffer' as well. `set-window-buffer' can't be
rewritten, for obvious reasons.
> Also, is it possible to have same logic to "un-display" (hide) a
> buffer, such that delete-buffer and bury-buffer are routed through
> that, also exclusively? And then to have a hook too, such as
> "hide-buffer-function"?
Hiding a buffer is done by `replace-buffer-in-windows' which is called
by `kill-buffer' (I suppose you mean that by "delete-buffer"). I don't
understand the semantics of `bury-buffer' well enough. What would you
want to put on that hook?
> And yes, that would be to bypass all the interesting logic you just
> designed and to replace it with something completely different. ;)
IIUC only your first issue fits into this remark. The routing issue you
raised goes into the opposite direction, I presume. And the "hiding"
logic was redesigned (confer `switch-to-prev-buffer') but it's only
loosely connected to buffer display proper.
martin
- Re: The window-pub branch, grischka, 2010/11/18
- Re: The window-pub branch,
martin rudalics <=
- Re: The window-pub branch, grischka, 2010/11/18
- Re: The window-pub branch, martin rudalics, 2010/11/19
- Re: The window-pub branch, grischka, 2010/11/19
- Re: The window-pub branch, martin rudalics, 2010/11/19
- Re: The window-pub branch, grischka, 2010/11/19
- Re: The window-pub branch, martin rudalics, 2010/11/20
- Re: The window-pub branch, grischka, 2010/11/20
- Re: The window-pub branch, martin rudalics, 2010/11/20
- Re: The window-pub branch, grischka, 2010/11/20
- Re: The window-pub branch, martin rudalics, 2010/11/21