[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: frames dedicated to buffers, or, always see specific buffers in a sp
Re: frames dedicated to buffers, or, always see specific buffers in a specific frame
Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:15:05 +0200
>> `switch-to-buffer' uses `pop-to-buffer' to make sure the window
>> displaying the buffer is selected. You use `display-buffer' which
>> doesn't necessarily make the window selected - IIUC you rely on the
>> window manager to select the window.
> yes, you understand correctly.
So for making this general purpose you should use `pop-to-buffer'
instead of `display-buffer'.
>> Other from that I don't see anything hackish with your approach if the
>> idea is to make `switch-to-buffer' do what you want when it's called
>> from other code (which ideally should not happen). In this case you
>> might also want to advice `switch-to-buffer-other-window' accordingly.
> I do want that precisely. `display-buffer-alist' apparently allows me (a LOT
> control how `display-buffer' but not
... only, I presume ...
> when it is called. The advice is because I
> want ibuffer and ido to work with this as well.
These should refrain from using `switch-to-buffer(-...)' and use
`pop-to-buffer' with the `display-buffer-same-window' directive instead.
Wherever this bothers you, file a bug report so it gets fixed.
> The hackish part is was also that I call the predicate twice, but I can
> (defadvice switch-to-buffer (around joaot/browse-buffer-maybe activate)
> (if (joaot/browse-buffer-p buffer-or-name nil)
> (let ((display-buffer-alist `(("" .
> (joaot/browse-buffer-in-special-frame . nil)))))
> (display-buffer buffer-or-name))
> However, I still have to have to set `display-buffer-alist' globally for those
> functions who call `display-buffer' directly, like `describe-function' does
> "*Help*" buffers, for example.
> (setq display-buffer-alist
> `((joaot/browse-buffer-p . (joaot/browse-buffer-in-special-frame .
> I'm quite happy with this functionally, and find this feature is quite useful
> keep focus on one frame, but be able to look at a secondary frame on a second
> monitor for reference and only switching to it occasionally.
I just don't understand whether you deliberately name buffers specially
to exploit this feature. Couldn't you use some more human predicate for
> Ideally I would want anywthing with the meaning "switch to some buffer" (be it
> `pop-to-buffer', `switch-to-buffer-other-window`, `display-buffer`, etc...) to
> be be hookable at some common point, much as is already done with `display-
This was the intention of `display-buffer-alist' and IIRC at some time I
had already removed all calls of `switch-to-buffer' from the Emacs code
base. Somehow this got reverted later.
> Or alternatively, and maybe simpler, if `display-buffer' is so powerful, why
> can't it be used by `switch-to-buffer' and friends? I know `diplay-buffer''s
> semantics are "display without selecting", but can't those be relaxed and the
> "without selecting" part be just the default?
`switch-to-buffer' is the traditional means to interactively show a
buffer in the selected window. It shouldn't be used in Lisp code.
> Another, distinct, small problem persists, and I suspect it has to do with not
> understanding what the various alists are in the documentation of
> and `display-buffer-alist'...
> Specifically, how can I prevent `display-buffer' from stopping at one of
> the actions that I specify in `display-buffer-alist'? For example,
> `describe-function' shows me the buffer on the secondary "browse" frame" but
> still keeps the current pop-to-frame behaviour. I'm going to have a look at
> `display-buffer-overriding-alist', maybe that will do it.
This doesn't sound right. When `display-buffer' has found a window it
should stop right there. Anything else would constitute a bug. If you
can reproduce it, step through it with the debugger to find out what