Re: Infrastructural complexity.

[Mathias Dahl]

K














































































































2009/7/22, Thomas Lord <address@hidden>:
> On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 12:12 +0200, martin rudalics wrote:
>
>>  > Tear-off menus and toolbar controllers are
>>  > commonly used (and are nice to use).
>>
>> And these can be implemented independently from window groups.
>>
>>  > Those tiny windows could be modeled nicely, I
>>  > think, as framelets:  frames with a non-nil parent.
>>
>> What is the parent of a frame?  Not an Emacs concept, I presume.
>
> It is a concept I'm trying to persuade people
> to use *instead of* window groups.  I think
> that window groups are too complicated and that
> they add generality of dubious, perhaps negative
> utility.
>
> With the change I'm proposing, frames gain
> a new slot - a parent slot - whose value is
> either nil or another frame.   Elisp programs
> can *not* modify this slot arbitrarily.
>
> No frame with a non-nil parent slot can itself
> be parent to another frame (at least not initially)
> thus nesting is limited to one level.
>
> Frames with non-nil parent slots can be created as
> pop-ups that can be torn off.   Additionally, each
> frame with a nil parent slot has four children that
> share its same window system window.  (See my earlier
> message with the Subject line "16 (Re: ...)".)
>
> When a parent frame is minimized or deleted, it's
> child frames are also minimized or deleted.
>
> This is a cleaner way, imo, to accomplish what
> window groups are trying to accomplish.
>
> -t
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Skickat från min mobila enhet