Re: More enhancements to fringe bitmaps.

[Kim F. Storm]

Nick Roberts <address@hidden> writes:

> > ;;; Here is an example of using a user-defined fringe bitmaps; it is a red
> > ;;; circle which can be used to mark a debugger breakpoint (instead of
> > ;;; using the display margin as gdba current does).
> 
> I recall a thread about 15 months ago about the fringe versus the display
> margin for breakpoint icons. However, I must admit that I've never quite
> understood the need for the fringe. 

Well, the fringe is there, so why not use it :-)

>                                     Using the display margin does shunt the
> code sideways but I've got used to that. 

That is one thing that I find it hard to get used to...

As a side note, I also find it hard to get used to NOT being able
to set a break-point with the mouse in a source buffer which is
not "side-shifted".

>                                          On the other hand, the overlay arrow
> already uses the fringe so it could get a bit crowded. Also, on text-only
> terminals the character `B' or `b' in the display margin marks a debugger
> breakpoint while the fringe is unavailable. Would the concept of the fringe
> make sense for such terminals?

I don't see why the two approaches cannot live side by side, i.e. let
it be a user option whether the breakpoint should be in the display
margin or in the fringe (when available, and it has a width >= 8
pixels):

I.e. something like

        (if (and window-system
                 gdb-display-break-point-in-fringe
                 (>= (car (window-fringes)) 8))
            (...)   ; put icon in fringe
          (...)  ; put icon in display margin
        )

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk