Marco Wahl <marcowahls...@gmail.com> writes: > My feeling is that the "protection" is good intention but brings more > harm than good. I think it's not a good idea to enforce a certain > window setting. I guess the knowing user has an easier path to fine > tune the org-goto user interface when there is less "protection".
I fully agree. That was the motivation behind removing dislpay-buffer-alist in 399481bad1. It is indeed not a good idea to overwrite user customisations. They can be deliberate. For example, see https://orgmode.org/list/87h7ij12t8.fsf@localhost Max Nikulin <maniku...@gmail.com> writes: > However current version of macro does not protect against > > (setq display-buffer-base-action > '((display-buffer-reuse-window display-buffer-pop-up-frame) > (reusable-frames . 0))) > > The example is taken from (info "(elisp) Choosing Window Options"). I > have no idea if such customization can be considered as shooting a foot. display-buffer-base-action, if customised by user, can later be fine-tuned using display-buffer-alist. If necessary, the user can easily add org-goto popup as an exception. At least, it is my understanding from reading docs. However, pop-up-frames and pop-up-windows are different beasts. They cannot be fine-tuned by the user to not affect org-goto. AFAIK, the only way for the user to overcome the problem would be advicing org-goto. > Summary: The org-goto interface today is somewhat broken. I vote for > taking the occasion and kicking out the macro org-no-popups entirely. > This way the org-goto interface is functional AFAICS. If problems occur > on that path we'll take care and action. > > Do you agree? My second version of the patch also fixes org-goto interface :) On the other hand, kicking org-no-popups macro completely may be an option. pop-up-windows and pop-up-frames are obsolete and should not be used anymore. Also, a compromise could be changing org-no-popups to just (let (pop-up-frames) ...) WDYT? Best, Ihor
