GNU bug report logs - #26243
25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 26243 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 26243 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:21:06 -0700 (PDT)

If code uses function `dired-pop-to-buffer', this is the byte-compiler
warning you get:

`dired-pop-to-buffer' is an obsolete function (as of 24.3);
use `dired-mark-pop-up' instead.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is a ridiculous warning.  `dired-mark-pop-up' is about acting on
each of the marked files and directories.  `dired-pop-to-buffer' pops
up a single buffer.

There is zero connection between `dired-mark-pop-up' and
`dired-pop-to-buffer'.


In GNU Emacs 25.1.1 (x86_64-w64-mingw32)
 of 2016-11-15
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --without-dbus --without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=-O2
 -static -g3''

Message #8 received at 26243 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: Juri Linkov <juri <at> jurta.org>, 26243 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 13:13:15 +0200

Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> writes:

> If code uses function `dired-pop-to-buffer', this is the byte-compiler
> warning you get:
>
> `dired-pop-to-buffer' is an obsolete function (as of 24.3);
> use `dired-mark-pop-up' instead.
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> That is a ridiculous warning.  `dired-mark-pop-up' is about acting on
> each of the marked files and directories.  `dired-pop-to-buffer' pops
> up a single buffer.
>
> There is zero connection between `dired-mark-pop-up' and
> `dired-pop-to-buffer'.

Those functions seem to have little to do with each other; yes.  So I've
now removed the reference.

It was added with a reference to bug 1806, which is a 170 message long
thread which I've not read.  I've Cc'd Juri (who made the change) in
case the reference makes sense anyway, in which case I'll revert my
change.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #15 received at 26243 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 26243 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:16:45 +0200

> It was added with a reference to bug 1806, which is a 170 message long
> thread which I've not read.  I've Cc'd Juri (who made the change) in
> case the reference makes sense anyway, in which case I'll revert my
> change.

I think the declaration should say to use 'pop-to-buffer' instead of
'dired-pop-to-buffer'.  But let's wait for Juri.

martin

Message #18 received at 26243 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
To: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 26243 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 01:41:50 +0300

>> It was added with a reference to bug 1806, which is a 170 message long
>> thread which I've not read.  I've Cc'd Juri (who made the change) in
>> case the reference makes sense anyway, in which case I'll revert my
>> change.
>
> I think the declaration should say to use 'pop-to-buffer' instead of
> 'dired-pop-to-buffer'.  But let's wait for Juri.

Yes, either 'pop-to-buffer' or 'dired-mark-pop-up'.  If 'dired-mark-pop-up'
doesn't suit the needs due to its narrow applicability, then a more general
'pop-to-buffer' should be used.  'dired-pop-to-buffer' was an ugly wrapper
around 'pop-to-buffer' with some additions that now should be specified
as ACTION args of 'display-buffer' (an example is in 'dired-mark-pop-up').
I don't understand why Drew still uses 'dired-pop-to-buffer'.

Message #21 received at 26243 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>, martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 26243 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:53:52 -0700 (PDT)

> Yes, either 'pop-to-buffer' or 'dired-mark-pop-up'.  If 'dired-mark-
> pop-up'
> doesn't suit the needs due to its narrow applicability, then a more
> general
> 'pop-to-buffer' should be used.  'dired-pop-to-buffer' was an ugly
> wrapper
> around 'pop-to-buffer' with some additions that now should be specified
> as ACTION args of 'display-buffer' (an example is in 'dired-mark-pop-
> up').
> I don't understand why Drew still uses 'dired-pop-to-buffer'.

I use `dired-pop-to-buffer' in more than one place
in my code (Dired+).  (I use a different definition
of it, but that's not really important here.  I also
use a different definition of `dired-mark-pop-up'.)

`dired-pop-to-buffer' shouldn't have been declared
"obsolete" in my opinion.  But in any case, surely
`dired-mark-pop-up' can't be used to do anything
like what it does.  (And no, `pop-to-buffer' isn't
an adequate replacement for it either.)

> some additions that now should be specified
> as ACTION args of 'display-buffer' (an example
> is in 'dired-mark-pop-up').

FWIW, we apparently disagree about whether using
`display-buffer' ACTION args is the way to do things.
We likely have different ideas about what is elegant
and what is ugly. ;-)  When a doc string resorts to
telling users things like this, I'd say we're already
veering off the elegant road:

 "use the Customization interface to add a new rule
  to `display-buffer-alist' where condition regexp is
  \"^ \\*Marked Files\\*$\", action argument symbol
  is `window-height' and its value is nil."

Message #24 received at 26243 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Cc: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>, 26243 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:35:20 +0200

Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net> writes:

>> I think the declaration should say to use 'pop-to-buffer' instead of
>> 'dired-pop-to-buffer'.  But let's wait for Juri.
>
> Yes, either 'pop-to-buffer' or 'dired-mark-pop-up'. 

I've now done the former.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #27 received at 26243 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Cc: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>, 26243 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 12:08:33 -0700 (PDT)

> >> I think the declaration should say to use 'pop-to-buffer' instead of
> >> 'dired-pop-to-buffer'.  But let's wait for Juri.
> >
> > Yes, either 'pop-to-buffer' or 'dired-mark-pop-up'.
> 
> I've now done the former.

OK, so instead of a "done" that's pretty much
a "won't fix" now.

A fairer treatment would be:
(declare (obsolete nil "24.3"))

A better treatment would be to remove the
declaration (un-obsolete).

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.