Re: [RP] feature request: frozen frames

[Rupert]

On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 04:00:26PM -0800, Shawn Betts wrote:
> Rupert <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > It's currently a pain if I want to run say xbiff or some other monitor
> > that I'd like to be visible all the time. For example if I have xbiff
> > and two other frames and then I want just xbiff and one of those
> > frames I have to C-t Q with xbiff and then C-t s and find the frame I
> > need, and then resize the frames to make xbiff a sensible size again.
> >
> > Could you "freeze" a frame like xbiff? I think that all this would
> > mean is telling other frames not to obliterate it when you do C-t Q,
> > so that the frozen frames restrict the space available to the other
> > frames.
> 
> Hi Rupert,
> 
> This seems like an interesting idea. It's like you take a frame and
> make it a panel or something. I don't think you could freeze just any
> frame, though. Or if you froze one frame it might require that other
> frames be frozen as well. take this for instance:
> 
> |------|
> |  C | |
> |    | |
> |----|A|
> | B  | |
> -------|
> 
> It'd be fine to freeze frame A, but what about frame C? If you froze
> frame C that you'd have to freeze frame B, otherwise how would C-t Q
> work?

I think that C-t Q should do nothing in that case. However, if B was
later split so that you had

 |---------|
 |   C   | |
 |       | |
 |-------|A|
 | B | D | |
 ----------|

then hitting C-t Q with B focussed should return you to your original
picture; with D focussed it should return to your original picture with D 
replacing B.

Also I don't think B is frozen in your original picture, since if you
unfroze C and did C-t Q with C focussed, B would not stay visible.

At least that's the way I envisaged it :) So I don't see any
restrictions on freezability. 

Rupert