Re: Customize fringe widths

[Alex Schroeder]

address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:

> 1) If the fringe width is less than the width of the bitmap, should
> the bitmap be clipped, or should the fringe width be adjusted to be
> able to hold the widest bitmap?

I think it should be clipped.  Explicit customization should override
automatism, thus if the user wants a small fringe, he doesn't want to
see a large fringe just because a package uses a large bitmap.

> 2) If I set the width of a fringe to zero, the corresponding
> truncation/continuation glyphs are not shown.

According to rule 1, that's what the user wants.

> It might be sensible to fall back to using the 20.x truncation glyphs,
> but this doesn't seem to be so simple, as the code for X seems to
> implicitly assume the existence of the fringes.

Perhaps it would make more sense to make the left and right fringe
different sizes, so users can have truncation info on the right fringe
and a zero-width left fringe?

> 3) It actually looks more sensible to adjust the fringe widths (and
> perhaps the bitmaps) on a per-buffer basis, rather than per-frame.
>
> But there are many other things which should be per-buffer rather than
> per-frame, so this should probably wait until we know how to fix this
> in general.

Maybe we should just add this feature now.  In XEmacs, for example,
many functions take a LOCATION argument which may either be a frame, a
window, or a buffer.  Thus I think it should be easy to add this
feature piece by piece.  We might as well start with the fringe.  :)

Alex.
-- 
http://www.emacswiki.org/