[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: next-error-last-buffer
From: |
Juri Linkov |
Subject: |
Re: next-error-last-buffer |
Date: |
Thu, 13 May 2004 07:23:12 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> 2. Add a new user variable `next-error-find-buffer-function' and try
> to call it (i.e. to call it if it's fbound and return its value,
> but if it returns `nil', try other rules) in `next-error-find-buffer'
> at the top precedence level before all other rules.
>
> Is this really an improvement? It is not that hard for users
> who want different behavior to edit the code.
With the goal to improve configurability of the rules for finding
an appropriate compilation buffer this is really an improvement.
But with a list of rules suggested by Ted, there will be no need
in a special variable for user-defined function.
> I thought again about why the current behavior is too confusing
> and I think I found the reason: the most confusing is the fact that
> the compilation buffer is visible in the window adjacent to the
> source file window where the point is located, but typing C-x `
> uses the last but not visible compilation buffer.
>
> Perhaps next-error should always choose a compilation or occur buffer
> that is visible in a window, rather than one that isn't. And it
> should prefer one that is visible in the current frame to one that is
> visible in another frame. This might help us get a better default
> behavior.
It seems this behavior will satisfy most users.
BTW, there is one related inconvenience in the compilation functionality:
when there is the compilation window on another frame, starting compilation
places another frame over the current frame, but doesn't make it active.
This is because in the function `compilation-start' the `frame' argument
of `display-buffer' is `t':
(display-buffer outbuf nil t)
^--- consider windows on all frames
Why should compilation insist on switching frames? Shouldn't
`display-buffer-reuse-frames' define the user preference instead?
So I think `display-buffer' should use the default values:
diff -u emacs/lisp/progmodes/compile.el~ emacs/lisp/progmodes/compile.el
@@ -898,7 +905,7 @@
(if (eq outbuf (current-buffer))
(goto-char (point-max)))
;; Pop up the compilation buffer.
- (setq outwin (display-buffer outbuf nil t))
+ (setq outwin (display-buffer outbuf))
(with-current-buffer outbuf
(if (not (eq mode t))
(funcall mode)
--
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, (continued)
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Juri Linkov, 2004/05/10
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Stefan Monnier, 2004/05/10
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/05/11
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Juri Linkov, 2004/05/11
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/05/12
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Juri Linkov, 2004/05/13
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/05/13
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/12
- Re: next-error-last-buffer,
Juri Linkov <=
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Miles Bader, 2004/05/13
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Stefan Monnier, 2004/05/13
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Juri Linkov, 2004/05/13
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Miles Bader, 2004/05/13
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/05/13
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/14
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/05/14
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Juri Linkov, 2004/05/15
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/15
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/15