From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thomas Lord Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Infrastructural complexity. Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:02:26 -0700 Message-ID: <1247871746.6287.157.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> References: <20090712180623.GA1009@muc.de> <1247784574.6302.83.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <1247787842.6302.90.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <1247793496.6302.112.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <1247797261.6302.137.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <1247798678.6302.156.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <87ocrjtafd.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1247871769 11230 80.91.229.12 (17 Jul 2009 23:02:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 23:02:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Lennart Borgman , joakim@verona.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Juri Linkov , Martin Rudalics , Stefan Monnier , Alan Mackenzie , Drew Adams To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 18 01:02:40 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MRwRq-000850-Vf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:02:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58037 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MRwRq-00007k-IC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:02:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MRwRm-00007J-DM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:02:34 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MRwRh-00005b-Cp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:02:33 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59765 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MRwRh-00005Y-7Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:02:29 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp191.iad.emailsrvr.com ([207.97.245.191]:34947) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MRwRg-0002kh-LZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:02:28 -0400 Original-Received: from relay9.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay9.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 908351E4956; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:02:27 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by relay9.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: lord-AT-emf.net) with ESMTPSA id F2A0E1E31A7; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:02:25 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87ocrjtafd.fsf@stupidchicken.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:112647 Archived-At: On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 14:46 -0400, Chong Yidong wrote: > I recall that we had an inconclusive discussion over the relative merits > of two proposals, one by Joakim that (IIRC) relied on window parameters, > and another by Martin that uses more built-in code. Does anyone have > any new thoughts about this? Yes. One observation is that RMS posted some pretty challenging questions about whether or not window groups are a good design, and these have gone unanswered: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2008-05/msg01769.html I think window groups are clearly not a good design, essentially because the questions he raises don't have good answers that I can see. But, there's no need to dwell on the negative. I've been looking at Eclipse screenshots and I regularly use programs like the OpenOffice suite and Gimp and so forth. I think I have some "feel" for what the goals are here. The "GUIs" you are going up against here tend to have window system windows with a main edit area. At the sides or bottom or top are various "panels" that perform ancillary functions. Each panel might have such things as a toolbar or set of "tabs". The window system window as a whole will have menus, a toolbar, and perhaps something like a minibuffer. In addition there are floating dialog boxes and "tear offs". So the question seems to be how to cleanly and simply improve emacs so that analogous things are possible. To me, Emacs frames are an existing abstraction that is already very close to how each individual panel, tearoff, and pop-up works. One key difference is that the panels etc. are one-level-deep subordinate to one main "frame" - sometimes graphically nested in them and always having commands that operate on the basis of that subordination. But they're frames. One example is if you look at Eclipse screen shots and the panel down the left side - sometimes it is split vertically; sometimes the user gets to add additional vertical splits. That panel is, to my mind, a frame -- just with this slight "subordination" addition and perhaps a restriction about which buffers can be displayed there. When I think about what kinds of buffers would appear in those "side frames", tear-offs etc. well, they would tend to be "controllers" that effect the parent frame. "Parent frame" is a new concept but the code for those controllers would also be new code so it isn't unreasonable to ask new code to recognize a new concept. There are other GUI details in the IDEs and other programs. Tab bars, and toolbars and such. I can imagine clean ways to add those to the extent they aren't already there but nothing even remotely close to "window groups" seems a reasonable abstraction -- at least unless it can be explained much better than it already has been. Something like "framelettes" seems a much better design to me. FWIW, of course. -t