[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist` |
Date: |
Sat, 9 Dec 2023 22:40:00 +0000 |
+** New 'pop-up-frames' action alist entry for 'display-buffer'.
+This has the same effect as the variable of the same name and takes
^^^^^^^^
+precedence over the variable when present.
Please don't do that. This is a user option,
_not_ just a variable. (And yes, it should
continue to be supported, forever, regardless
of the fact that it's been "deprecated".)
`display-buffer' shouldn't override the user's
choice for the behavior.
>From my point of view it's OK for a given
command to override a user option, but only
if the command's doc tells users that it does
that.
And a command can do that just by binding the
option to nil. Please don't let a parameter
to `display-buffer' override this handy, simple
user option.
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, Stefan Monnier, 2023/12/03
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/12/10
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, Stefan Monnier, 2023/12/10
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, martin rudalics, 2023/12/11
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, Stefan Monnier, 2023/12/11
- bug#67249: 30.0.50; `same-frame` equivalent for `display-buffer-alist`, Stefan Monnier, 2023/12/16