RE: Infrastructural complexity.

[Drew Adams]

> >> >> Because messages missing by the user is a real problem in Emacs.
> >> >> Most modern IDEs has no such problem since they have a special
> >> >> `Log' tab/window.  We are gearing towards IDE so our efforts
> >> >> will count for this goal.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure this argument is valid, since one can set up a
> >> > dedicated *Messages* window in Emacs, if desired.
> >>
> >> Why does that help? Don't we need the protected window feature that
> >> will (hopefully) be included (for ECB)?
>
> There is no "protected windows" yet, but ... It is windows that
> are not affected by window commands that deletes windows,
> like C-x 1, C-x 0.

OK, so let's forget about ECB for the moment. You are saying, I guess, that
unless we can protect the *Messages* window from being deleted, what Yidong
suggested won't help (or it won't be sufficient). Is that it?

If so, why not? I don't see why the window needs to be protected from deletion.
Can you give a concrete example of the problem?

FWIW - I show *Messages* in its own frame, in a dedicated window. It tails
itself naturally (assuming point is at eob). I can leave *Messages* showing or I
can delete its frame/window, if I want. Nothing else will delete or displace it
behind my back. I can easily adjust the frame/window height to change the "tail"
size. What more is needed? What is the problem here that what I'm already doing
doesn't solve?