bug#81512: [PATCH] Add command `outline-occur'

 > The problem I see with the name `display-buffer-override-alist' is that
 > while `display-buffer-overriding-action' has the highest priority and
 > overrides all other variables, `display-buffer-alist' would be processed
 > before `display-buffer-override-alist', so the latter would not override
 > the former.  It also feels a bit confusing to have both
 > `display-buffer-overriding-action' and `display-buffer-override-alist'.

We should avoid any terms in use like "overriding" or "base" because it
would confuse users and we must avoid "--" and "internal" because we
have to document it in the manual.  Since we process it in addition to
'display-buffer-alist' we could call it 'display-buffer-add-alist' or
'display-buffer-complementary-alist'.

Otherwise 'display-buffer-app-alist' might be best although I despise
the term "app" and we hardly use it elsewhere.

I'd still like to hear someone's opinion on when and why this should be
set in _any other way_ but let-binding it.  It would be a package that
always wants to override ACTION arguments of nested 'display-buffer'
calls.  As such, it could be useful for the bookmark jump scenario
described in another thread.  But if a second package wants to do the
same - and the bookmark discussion seems to imply that there is more
than one client of a bookmark jump buffer display call - then the
settings will collide if they use a 'category' entry (and anything but a
'category' does not seem very useful for bookmarks).  Please comment on
that issue before we proceed.

martin