Re: Windows' "split status"

[Nix]

On 15 Nov 2011, martin rudalics told this:
> What makes you think that?  You can let-bind `window-nest' to t around a
> split and get an extra parent around the resulting two windows.  After
> that you can split those windows any which way you want and can get an
> arbitrary number of windows within a "sub-frame".  The manual explicitly
> uses the term "always" in the sentence
>
>      If this variable is always non-`nil', a frame's window
>      tree is a binary tree so every window but the frame's root window
>      has exactly one sibling.

As a native English speaker, I'm afraid that this reads like a
non-native-English-speaker's attempt to render

> If this variable is always non-`nil', a frame's window tree is always
> a binary tree so every window but the frame's root window has exactly
> one sibling.

which unfortunately has a quite different meaning. While your
formulation is grammatically correct, I don't think it's very meaningful
to talk about a variable's value "always" being something.

Perhaps framing this in terms of a guarantee is clearer?

> If this variable's value remains non-`nil' throughout the lifetime of
> a frame, the frame's window tree is guaranteed to be a binary tree;
> every window nested below the root window will have exactly one
> sibling.

-- 
NULL && (void)