Re: [display-buffer] a way to make it behave as before?

[martin rudalics]

>> Currently, I
>> can reproduce the "display on another frame" behavior iff I make the
>> selected window small enough and all other windows on this frame
>> unusable.  Please try once more.
>
> What does `unusable' mean?

Dedicated.  Maybe there are other means, but that's what I tried.

>> If I prepend a (reuse-window nil nil nil) specifier to the first entry
>> in `display-buffer-alist' the selected window gets reused (with the old
>> unsplittable frame behavior).
>
> Verified.  It's not what I want, though.  I only want `C-x 4 f'
> to split the current window or to use the other window within
> the frame as exactly the same as old Emacsen do.

I see.  But does the current default now do what you need in this
respect?  Or are there additional glitches I shall repair?

> That the new `display-buffer' and friends are useful is beyond
> doubt, but I can imagine people will be getting flustered for
> the new behavior sooner or later.  For instance, someone in Japan
> asked for a help last night; a frame that BBDB makes is too large,
> a frame used to compose a mail is too small, etc.  We can't support
> all of them, can we?  So, you'd better make `display-buffer-alist'
> default to `conservative' or provide a switch that enables a user
> to make `display-buffer' behave as before completely, I think.

I fully agree with you.  Your comments in this regard are highly
appreciated.  The problem is that I started to think about backward
compatibility only about two weeks ago - till then I was debugging the
`display-buffer-alist' based code.  So most bugs of the past week were
introduced in the phase when I wrote the backward compatibility layer
(mostly what's done in the function `display-buffer-normalize-options').

> BTW, shouldn't the default size of a newly created frame follow
> that of `emacs -Q' or `C-x 5 2' ?  I feel 80x24 is too small.

You're right.  I removed that entry completely so it now uses the
default value used by C-x 5 2.  When, and if, you have the time to go
through the default settings of `display-buffer-alist' once more and
find anything that in your opinion just could lead to troubles please
tell me.

Thanks, martin