Re: master 432c1aa: Use `pop-to-buffer-same-window' in `project-eshell'

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 20.03.2021 19:21, Theodor Thornhill wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> > 20. mar. 2021 kl. 18:08 skrev Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>:
> >
> > On 20.03.2021 04:06, Stefan Kangas wrote:
> > > But now `project-eshell' and `project-shell' behave differently, which
> > > seems unfortunate.  So if this is the behavior we want, shouldn't we
> > > change the latter as well for consistency?
> >
> > Perhaps the answer is to first decide which behavior makes most sense, then 
> > make M-x eshell and M-x shell both adopt it, and then do it for project-* 
> > versions as well (which would be the easy part)?
>
> When I first implemented those functions I made eshell behave more like shell, 
> and also made shell behave more sensibly (to me... which also is the reason 
> universal argument acts differently from mx shell). Right now I am thinking we 
> should let display-buffer decide.

Meaning not use pop-to-buffer-same-window?

> Should we force one behavior over another?

FWIW, my (moderate) preference is Eshell's behavior because it's also 
consistent with IELM or Dired. And I use it more.

> > Otherwise, the difference in behavior should remain unnecessary evil as long as 
> > project-xyz follows xyz.
> >
> > I'm guessing the average user is more likely to more often use, say, eshell and 
> > project-eshell, rather than alternate between shell and eshell evenly.
>
> Not sure - i usually fall back to shell more and more often

If Eshell + Shell fallback is a frequent pattern, then indeed 
consistency between them is desirable.