bug#81512: [PATCH] Add command `outline-occur'
martin rudalics via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.emacs.bugs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> I have some questions or remarks about the new variable > `display-buffer-default-alist' you have added, about its semantics and > documentation. I have not been following this thread, I apologize if I > miss something important. > > First, the name: this variable seems to be intended to override some > (default) behavior; it's binding has one of the highest priorities. > This means that it's on the other end than variables that are typically > named "-default", which are considered with lowest priority. Unless I'm > missing something, the name is confusing and not consistent with our > typical nomenclature. Agreed. But we already have 'display-buffer-base-action' which probably should have been called 'display-buffer-default-action' and the first occurrence of "alist" is in 'display-buffer-alist' so it's reasonable to have 'display-buffer-default-alist' right beneath that. Anyway, feel free to suggest a better term. We'll be all ears I suppose. > Second: the added documentation says that this is a variable "which Lisp > programs may let-bind to specify conditional actions for nested > `display-buffer' calls." I don't understand the connection to nested > calls here. When at all is `display-buffer' been called recursively? > And in such a case, which variable is then crucial for which call of > `display-buffer'? Is the outer or inner call ignoring one the variables? A let-binding of `display-buffer-default-alist' is supposed to override the ACTION argument of a 'display-buffer' call nested within that binding. For nested let-bindings of 'display-buffer-default-alist' the usual rules for let-bindings apply. If something is not clear about this, we'll have to fix it. > Finally, it is not so nice to see how many variables we now have to > control or override the behavior of `display-buffer'. I wonder whether > the design we have is really a good one, or if we have redundant > variables now. Maybe. Unfortunately, we also have to carry around obsolete variables from bygone versions. martin