From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: Vertical split in Emacs 23 Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:46:19 -0400 Message-ID: <14073.1247755579@gamaville.dokosmarshall.org> References: <87tz1dsulc.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MRSFM-0002xD-Il for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:47:44 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MRSFI-0002sf-RV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:47:44 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38458 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MRSFI-0002sS-Lj for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:47:40 -0400 Received: from vms173005pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.5]:64533) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MRSFI-0004UO-60 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:47:40 -0400 Received: from gamaville.dokosmarshall.org ([98.110.172.159]) by vms173005.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KMV00AJDQCMIO80@vms173005.mailsrvcs.net> for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:45:59 -0500 (CDT) In-reply-to: Message from Paul Mead of "Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:51:27 BST." <87tz1dsulc.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Paul Mead Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Paul Mead wrote: > I've recently upgraded to Emacs 23, and I'm not at all impressed with > the vertical split that it seems to prefer when there's supposedly > enough buffer width to allow it - the Agenda gets squashed up and things > like the TODO quick selection menus look terrible. > > Is there a way of changing this back to the old behaviour? Through > experimentation I've found that if I reduce the frame width sufficiently > it reverts to horizontal split but I like to work with emacs maximized > most often. > Assuming that the variable `split-window-preferred-function' is set to `split-window-sensibly', you can play with some of the settings mentioned in the functions's documentation: ,---- | split-window-sensibly is a compiled Lisp function in `window.el'. | | (split-window-sensibly WINDOW) | | Split WINDOW in a way suitable for `display-buffer'. | If `split-height-threshold' specifies an integer, WINDOW is at | least `split-height-threshold' lines tall and can be split | vertically, split WINDOW into two windows one above the other and | return the lower window. Otherwise, if `split-width-threshold' | specifies an integer, WINDOW is at least `split-width-threshold' | columns wide and can be split horizontally, split WINDOW into two | windows side by side and return the window on the right. If this | can't be done either and WINDOW is the only window on its frame, | try to split WINDOW vertically disregarding any value specified | by `split-height-threshold'. If that succeeds, return the lower | window. Return nil otherwise. | | By default `display-buffer' routines call this function to split | the largest or least recently used window. To change the default | customize the option `split-window-preferred-function'. | | You can enforce this function to not split WINDOW horizontally, | by setting (or binding) the variable `split-width-threshold' to | nil. If, in addition, you set `split-height-threshold' to zero, | chances increase that this function does split WINDOW vertically. | | In order to not split WINDOW vertically, set (or bind) the | variable `split-height-threshold' to nil. Additionally, you can | set `split-width-threshold' to zero to make a horizontal split | more likely to occur. | | Have a look at the function `window-splittable-p' if you want to | know how `split-window-sensibly' determines whether WINDOW can be | split. `---- I haven't checked whether/how you can restore emacs-22 behavior though. HTH, Nick