[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#34749: 26.1; `delete-windows-on': (1) doc, (2) bug, (3) bug, (4) can

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: bug#34749: 26.1; `delete-windows-on': (1) doc, (2) bug, (3) bug, (4) candidates
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 15:15:01 +0200

> Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 12:02:04 +0100
> From: martin rudalics <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden
> About "what behavior would be best if (as it seems) we still need to
> design this".  I don't use this function so I don't have any ideas
> about what behavior would be best.

I think we should simply try letting the user provide all possible
values of the FRAME argument in interactive invocations, by using
different forms of 'C-u'.

>  > Why is Emacs behaving unlike the doc string says?
> I think because this function has to work in some ad hoc manner, for
> example, when a window is not dedicated and alone on its frame.  The
> initial claim "Delete all windows showing BUFFER-OR-NAME." is simply
> wrong in this regard.  Maybe we should say "Try to delete all windows
> showing BUFFER-OR-NAME." instead.

That'd be too radical, IMO.  I'd rather we described the exceptional
cases, because I think they would be rare.  Can you enumerate those

> But I'm not keen rewriting this doc-string because I never documented
> the behavior of the prefix argument as Drew requested.  I simply don't
> understand how that works.

I think it would be better to rework the interpretation of the prefix
arg so it makes sense.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]