[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#32607: 27.0.50; pop-to-buffer in next-error-no-select
From: |
Juri Linkov |
Subject: |
bug#32607: 27.0.50; pop-to-buffer in next-error-no-select |
Date: |
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 02:31:44 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) |
> The first inhibit-same-window should hopefully make the
> second unnecessary. If the first fails to do its job or somehow
> indirectly causes the original buffer not to be displayed in the
> original window, I'm not really sure what we should do about it.
> IOW, for the second part I'm not sure either of
> display-buffer-reuse-window or inhibit-same-window is clearly superior
> to the other.
>
> Maybe to get closer to "the ideal", we should go for something like:
>
> (let* ((orig-window (selected-window))
> (orig-buf (window-buffer orig-window)))
> (let ((next-error-highlight next-error-highlight-no-select)
> (display-buffer-overriding-action '(nil (inhibit-same-window .
> t))))
> (next-error n))
> (cond
> ((eql (window-buffer orig-window) next-error-last-buffer)
> ;; inhibit-same-window did its job, we can just return to the original
> ;; window.
> (select-window orig-window))
> ((eql orig-buf next-error-last-buffer)
> ;; Somehow the original window was affected by `next-error`, so
> ;; we need to work harder to bring the buffer back.
> (select-window orig-window)
> (pop-to-buffer-same-window next-error-last-buffer))
> (t
> ;; Something weird is going on. We don't really know where we were
> ;; (orig-window was not showing the buffer where we were supposed
> ;; to "stay"), so let's just try and keep both buffers displayed
> ;; while at the same time trying not to gratuitously creating new
> ;; windows either.
> (let ((display-buffer-overriding-action '(display-buffer-reuse-window
> (inhibit-same-window . t))))
> (pop-to-buffer next-error-last-buffer)))))
I see that such explicit handling even supports the case when
next-error-last-buffer
gets changed on different frames (when using
next-error-buffer-on-selected-frame).
> But maybe we should instead trust inhibit-same-window to do its job and
> go for a simple:
>
> (save-selected-window
> (let ((next-error-highlight next-error-highlight-no-select)
> (display-buffer-overriding-action
> '(nil (inhibit-same-window . t))))
> (next-error n)))
This is much simpler. Actually, this is what I wanted to propose as
a solution to Martin in one of previous messages, but I mistakenly wrote
save-window-excursion whereas I actually intended save-selected-window.
- bug#32607: 27.0.50; pop-to-buffer in next-error-no-select, (continued)
- bug#32607: 27.0.50; pop-to-buffer in next-error-no-select, Stefan Monnier, 2018/09/12
- bug#32607: 27.0.50; pop-to-buffer in next-error-no-select, Juri Linkov, 2018/09/12
- bug#32607: 27.0.50; pop-to-buffer in next-error-no-select, Stefan Monnier, 2018/09/12
- bug#32607: 27.0.50; pop-to-buffer in next-error-no-select, martin rudalics, 2018/09/13
- bug#32607: 27.0.50; pop-to-buffer in next-error-no-select, Stefan Monnier, 2018/09/13
- bug#32607: 27.0.50; pop-to-buffer in next-error-no-select, Juri Linkov, 2018/09/13
- bug#32607: 27.0.50; pop-to-buffer in next-error-no-select, Stefan Monnier, 2018/09/13
- bug#32607: 27.0.50; pop-to-buffer in next-error-no-select,
Juri Linkov <=
- bug#32607: 27.0.50; pop-to-buffer in next-error-no-select, martin rudalics, 2018/09/16
- bug#32607: 27.0.50; pop-to-buffer in next-error-no-select, Stefan Monnier, 2018/09/16