emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Infrastructural complexity.


From: Lennart Borgman
Subject: Re: Infrastructural complexity.
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:54:31 +0200

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Thomas Lord<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 00:14 +0200, Lennart Borgman wrote:
>
>> There is no "protected windows" yet, but ECB tries to implement them.
>> It is windows that are not affected by window commands that deletes
>> windows, like C-x 1, C-x 0.
>
>
> If (and it's a moderately sized "if") I understand correctly
> what functionality is desired, I think that there is a cleaner
> approach:  hack frames, not windows.
>
> How about:
>
> A "frame" is a frame, essentially like today.  Except:
>
> A "framelette" is like a frame, except that it is a child
> of a frame.  Every frame has exactly four framelettes, always:
> Two framelettes at the top and and bottom of the frame, one
> just below where menus go, the other just above where the
> minibuffer goes.  Two framelettes at the left and right edges,
> bordered above and below by the top and bottom framelettes.

I am unable to understand the "four framelettes". Why not just let any
window be a framelette if desired?


> Framelettes can not be created or deleted other than
> by making a new frame or killing an old frame.
>
> The window configuration of a framelette can be nil, in
> which case the framelette is not displayed.
>
> The rectangle left in the middle, bounded on all sides by
> the four framelettes, is where the windows of the frame
> go.  A command like C-x 1 clears just that one rectangle,
> at least if invoked from within that rectangle.
>
> If a window in a framelette is selected, then "selected-frame"
> gives the framelette, not the parent frame.
>
> DELETE-FRAME in a framelette does not actually delete the
> frame, it only sets its window configuration to nil and
> selects a window in the middle of the parent frame.
>
> Trying to hack what I think you are trying to do just
> at the window level seems like it will overly complicate
> the problem of coming up with a better window configuration
> system.  Hacking it at the frame level and keeping it simple
> with just the four framelettes seems like you an do all the
> neat IDE GUIish stuff without too badly mucking up long-standing
> abstractions.
>
> I would expect the modes most often used in buffers whose
> windows live in framelettes to not treat commands like C-x 1
> quite normally - but they can do that easily without horking
> too badly what such commands normally mean.
>
> -t
>
>
>
>
>>
>> I have no idea what we will call, that is why I gave a pointer to ECB,
>> but of course only those that are familiar with ECB will understand
>> me. Sorry.
>>
>> There was a long discussion of this feature here some time ago. ECB
>> uses advice to achieve this now. The solution is surpricingly good,
>> but there are some smaller irritating problems with it of course.
>
>
>




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]