Re: window-resizable confusion

[Chong Yidong]

martin rudalics <address@hidden> writes:

> The answer to the question whether a window W can be resized consists of
> two parts - a "down" part and an "up" part.  In the down part I check
> whether resizing would violate the min-/fixed-size restrictions of W or,
> if W is internal, the leaf windows of W's subtree.  In the up part I
> check whether resizing W would violate the min-/fixed-size restrictions
> of W's siblings, its parent's siblings, ...
>
> NODOWN non-nil means do not perform the down part because it's not
> needed, for example, when W is deleted or I already know that W or its
> subwindows can be given the requested size.
>
> The doc-string is obviously silly in this respect.  If you can do any
> better, please try.  Otherwise, I'll fix it somehow.

I think the NOUP and NODOWN arguments should be replaced with a single
argument, SUBTREE.  If the value is `upper-tree', that would be
equivalent to NODOWN non-nil; if the value is `lower-tree', that would
be equivalent to NOUP non-nil.