[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Pretest begins end-June
From: |
martin rudalics |
Subject: |
Re: Pretest begins end-June |
Date: |
Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:08:08 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) |
> You said that binding the var would no longer work.
> That is a removal/limit of that possibility.
The application can bind the variable `display-buffer-alist' instead.
> And you do not provide a suitable alternative. You are missing/ignoring the
> general case, where the code that does the display is not necessarily
available
> to modify textually.
I don't understand you here.
> Your "suitable alternative" is workable only in the minority of cases where
the
> call to `pop-to-buffer' is directly available and can be edited. You propose
> source-code editing as a replacement for the programmatic control of dynamic
> binding.
Actually I followed Stefan's advice which I repeat here once more:
Rather than let-binding some Lisp-manipulated "config" var, I was
thinking of passing special parameters to display-buffer (I'd rather
avoid dynamic scoping whenever possible).
So you can see that my first approach was to use conventional binding.
>> IMHO an application may request (or better "suggest")
>> specific behavior and set private variables.
>
> Your example substitute code does not "request" or "suggest" how to display,
> IIUC. It imposes how to display, the same as the code it would replace.
But not by manipulating a user option. Moreover, users can _always_
override the application, if they want to.
> Or if not, then it is not at all a suitable alternative and we are not even
> talking apples and oranges but rather apples and orangutans.
>
>> But it should not change or rebind any user option.
>
> Obviously I disagree. You're apparently OK with an application deciding
whether
> to pop up a frame, but not OK with doing that by binding a dynamic variable,
> because in this case the var is a user option.
Yes (if we replace the term "deciding" by the term "suggesting").
> That's hypocritical and silly. If an application controls the display, then
it
> has taken control for that away from the user, regardless of how it does so.
No. A let-binding affects every `display-buffer' call nested in it. An
argument affects only the associated call.
> Bypassing `pop-up-frames' to do that is no more respectful of the user's
general
> preference as expressed by that var than is binding the var. What is
important
> are the resulting behavior and the user's preferences.
>
> Sometimes an application can be right to decide how something is displayed, in
> spite of a user's general preference. Developers need to DTRT, thinking about
> the user and her preferences to decide what TRT is in any given context.
> Respecting users does not necessarily mean blindly applying their general
> preferences in all contexts.
Let's agree that developers and users may be both wrong, sometimes.
> If your code violates a user's general preference as defined by her
> `pop-up-frames' value, it is irrelevant how that violation was implemented.
>
> And this is more general than a question about user options. It is about
> dynamic variables in general. Removing the ability to bind a dynamic var in
> order to control behavior in code that is not directly modifiable is limiting
> and, frankly, unlispy. (No flames about lexical-only Lisps, please.)
We wouldn't agree anyway.
martin
- Re: Pretest begins end-June, (continued)
- Re: Pretest begins end-June, martin rudalics, 2011/06/01
- Re: Pretest begins end-June, Stefan Monnier, 2011/06/01
- Re: Pretest begins end-June, martin rudalics, 2011/06/01
- Re: Pretest begins end-June, Stefan Monnier, 2011/06/01
- Re: Pretest begins end-June, martin rudalics, 2011/06/01
- Re: Pretest begins end-June, Stefan Monnier, 2011/06/01
- Re: Pretest begins end-June, martin rudalics, 2011/06/02
- RE: Pretest begins end-June, Drew Adams, 2011/06/01
- Re: Pretest begins end-June, martin rudalics, 2011/06/01
- RE: Pretest begins end-June, Drew Adams, 2011/06/01
- Re: Pretest begins end-June,
martin rudalics <=
- Re: Pretest begins end-June, Stefan Monnier, 2011/06/01
- RE: Pretest begins end-June, Drew Adams, 2011/06/01
- Re: Pretest begins end-June, martin rudalics, 2011/06/02
window-safely-shrinkable-p [was Re: Pretest begins end-June], Glenn Morris, 2011/06/11