Re: The window-pub branch

[grischka]

martin rudalics wrote:
> I reinstalled `display-buffer-function' so you have one additional
> layer.  And the override specifier should give you a way to override
> anything supplied by an application.  Did you try it, by the way?

Actually no. I had already switched to (defadvice display-buffer
which works anyway ;)

Feedback wise I'd note that I was not pleased to see two of three
entries I made to 'display-buffer-names' not work.  As a user if
I write (new-window (root . left)) and then the new window still
opens on bottom, I have better things to do.

Design wise, I think that the idea with the specifiers to tweak
window layout is not that bad actually.

In any case however it seems like a pretty bad idea to scatter
these specifiers all over the elisp code (whether explicitly
passed as parameters or implicitly with all sort of bizarre long
convenience function names.)

Why is it not possible to have one single function that takes no
specifiers and that is used by all applications with no difference,
in combination with pre-configured entries in 'display-buffer-names'
to get the desired behavior for specific applications.

This would be transparent, prove the power of the design, and as a
user I can read the real-use entries and learn from them and alter
them if I wish.

> It's only when I write display code that I can remove invariants like
> "every window must be at least one line tall" or "every live window must
> have a live buffer associated with it".  When I write code for handling
> windows I treat the display code as a black box (or a "third party")
> with given restrictions and implied invariants.  When I write code for
> displaying buffers I treat the code for handling windows as a black box
> with given restrictions and implied invariants.

I'd maybe rather spend 3 days in one box to remove some restrictions
first before I spend 10 months in the other box to work around them.

> martin