[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Potential bug in the logic of rmail-select-summary
From: |
martin rudalics |
Subject: |
Re: Potential bug in the logic of rmail-select-summary |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:42:34 +0100 |
> ;; If pop-to-buffer did not use that window, delete that
> ;; window. (This can happen if it uses another frame.)
> (if (not (eq sumbuf (window-buffer (frame-first-window))))
> (delete-other-windows)))
>
> Here the condition is for some reason true somewhere in the call chain,
> and I don’t really understand.
Do you mean to say that this part is also executed in the multiple
windows case despite of the
(if (and (one-window-p)
pop-up-windows
(not pop-up-frames))
guard?
> I think I’ll give up on this as what Rmail does with buffers in
> intermediary steps of a command is fairly complex, and Rmail has many
> assumptions about what’s where when. Maybe later I’ll try make Rmail
> call pop-to-buffer no more than strictly necessary. Till then I’ll give
> it it’s own frame and call it a day :)
I'm afraid that Rmail is just not amenable to customizations via
'display-buffer'. It probably would have to be rewritten from scratch
for that purpose.
martin
- Potential bug in the logic of rmail-select-summary, Göktuğ Kayaalp, 2021/01/19
- Re: Potential bug in the logic of rmail-select-summary, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/19
- Re: Potential bug in the logic of rmail-select-summary, Göktuğ Kayaalp, 2021/01/19
- Re: Potential bug in the logic of rmail-select-summary, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/19
- Re: Potential bug in the logic of rmail-select-summary, martin rudalics, 2021/01/19
- Re: Potential bug in the logic of rmail-select-summary, Göktuğ Kayaalp, 2021/01/20
- Re: Potential bug in the logic of rmail-select-summary, martin rudalics, 2021/01/20
- Re: Potential bug in the logic of rmail-select-summary, Göktuğ Kayaalp, 2021/01/27
- Re: Potential bug in the logic of rmail-select-summary,
martin rudalics <=