[RP] Re: list patch

[Henrik Enberg]

Shawn Betts <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

> This conversion to a generic list is the first step to adding frame
> sets. I'm not sure if I want to have a tree structure. It seems
> awfully complicated to keep track of in one's mind and the trade off
> doesn't seem particularily worth it. As I understand it (and I may
> not), making it a tree allows you to keep track of all your frame
> splitting changes. And you can revert to an earlier split
> configuration and then start a new branch with a different splitting
> scheme. But it seems like most of the time one would split a couple
> times and make their nice configuration and then want to switch to a
> different configuration. traversing the tree to get there might be a
> bit irritating (although it looks like there are ways to quickly jump
> around). 

I kind of agree, I found the tree bit slightly confusing.  I think a
(possibly circular) doubly-linked list would be much easier to handle.
Then you could just have one binding for next split and one for the
previous.

> But the question is: are all these iterations of the splits you want
> really worth keeping around? Perhaps I'm just out to lunch.

The list could grow automatically to some user-defined limit, and then
remove the oldest item if the user creates a new split.  Sort of like
the kill-ring in Emacs.