From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9875: 24.0.90; Confusing description of the "window tree" in ELisp manual Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:05:18 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83zkgnbo50.fsf@gnu.org> <4EA92AC0.1040803@gmx.at> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1319713588 14685 80.91.229.12 (27 Oct 2011 11:06:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:06:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 9875@debbugs.gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 27 13:06:24 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJNmv-00018U-HX for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:06:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36642 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJNmu-0004gD-UM for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:06:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:53693) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJNmr-0004g0-GE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:06:18 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJNmp-000151-3T for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:06:17 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:38936) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJNmo-00014r-UL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:06:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJNoY-00040U-Bx for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:08:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:08:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9875 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 9875-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9875.131971363215345 (code B ref 9875); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:08:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9875) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Oct 2011 11:07:12 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJNnj-0003zR-0E for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:07:12 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10] ident=Debian-exim) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJNnf-0003zG-Rb for 9875@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:07:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJNlu-0000Kx-K9; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:05:18 -0400 In-reply-to: <4EA92AC0.1040803@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:56:16 +0200) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:08:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:53201 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:56:16 +0200 > From: martin rudalics > CC: Stefan Monnier , 9875@debbugs.gnu.org > > > That's true, but this fact is an implementation detail; we could > > easily have the nodes be different Lisp objects. > > Certainly not. If you look into the window resizing code you will see > that it treats internal and leaf windows alike. Changing the underlying > representation would have meant to double the work done there. It's clear that representing the non-leaf nodes as window objects was chosen because it's convenient from the implementation POV. But that doesn't mean we need to expose this to every place where we describe how windows are split and resized. > > So I think speaking about "nodes" instead will avoid confusion, > > because otherwise whenever we talk about a "window", the reader will > > always be in doubt whether this applies only to the "real", i.e. leaf > > windows, or to the "internal" ones as well. > > This is usually said in the second sentence of the doc-string. For > `split-window' it reads > > "WINDOW can be any window and defaults to the selected one." When J.R. Hacker reads about "any window", she will definitely have only live windows in mind. > And for `set-window-buffer' we have > > "WINDOW has to be a live window and defaults to the selected one." Which immediately begs the question "how can a window not be `live'"? > Let's not spoil this very simple recipe. Simple is in the eye of the beholder. And I was talking about the manual, not the doc strings, btw.