From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Jan D." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [rudalics@gmx.at: enlarge-window with preserve-before non-nil] Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 20:48:59 +0200 Message-ID: <4286481B.6070702@swipnet.se> References: <427E756D.6070908@swipnet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1116097365 28152 80.91.229.2 (14 May 2005 19:02:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 19:02:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 14 21:02:42 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DX1uE-0001Yp-Tc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 14 May 2005 21:02:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DX1vu-00016e-P9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 14 May 2005 15:04:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DX1ub-0000nM-6Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 May 2005 15:02:57 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DX1uP-0000j1-Od for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 May 2005 15:02:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DX1uO-0000fq-T3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 May 2005 15:02:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.54.107.70] (helo=mxfep01.bredband.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DX1p6-0004FT-6P; Sat, 14 May 2005 14:57:16 -0400 Original-Received: from coolsville.localdomain ([83.226.180.210] [83.226.180.210]) by mxfep01.bredband.com with ESMTP id <20050514184950.RFRR24425.mxfep01.bredband.com@coolsville.localdomain>; Sat, 14 May 2005 20:49:50 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: 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:37142 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:37142 Richard Stallman wrote: > I looked a bit, but I am not sure how it shall work. If I just to three > windows, in the obvious way (C-x 2, C-x 2), I get three windows, one 11 > lines, one 12 lines and one 24 lines. This gives me this window > configuration: > > 0x86b6b10: vchild: 0x861d830, hchild: 0x0, next: 0x861d9c8, parent: 0x0, > h: 47 > 0x861d830: vchild: 0x0, hchild: 0x0, next: 0x8694a50, parent: 0x86b6b10, > h: 11 > 0x8694a50: vchild: 0x0, hchild: 0x0, next: 0x86b6ca8, parent: 0x86b6b10, > h: 12 > 0x86b6ca8: vchild: 0x0, hchild: 0x0, next: 0x0, parent: 0x86b6b10, h: 24 > 0x861d9c8: vchild: 0x0, hchild: 0x0, next: 0x0, parent: 0x0, h: 1 > >That's the correct configuration for such a case. > > > But if I create the same three windows (11, 12 and 24 lines) with the > method below, I get this window configuration: > > 0x8833558: vchild: 0x87f9978, hchild: 0x0, next: 0x861d9c8, parent: 0x0, > h: 47 > 0x87f9978: vchild: 0x86a7a48, hchild: 0x0, next: 0x8820a48, parent: > 0x8833558, h: 23 > 0x86a7a48: vchild: 0x0, hchild: 0x0, next: 0x87b6d68, parent: 0x87f9978, > h: 11 > 0x87b6d68: vchild: 0x0, hchild: 0x0, next: 0x0, parent: 0x87f9978, h: 12 > 0x8820a48: vchild: 0x0, hchild: 0x0, next: 0x0, parent: 0x8833558, h: 24 > 0x861d9c8: vchild: 0x0, hchild: 0x0, next: 0x0, parent: 0x0, h: 1 > >This is a bug. A window which is a vchild should never have a vchild. > >Can you determine at which step the structure first becomes >incorrect? That is where the bug is, I think. > I think it is correct up to the last delete, but correct me if I'm wrong. Steps in the chain are represented like this (arrow down = next, arrow diagonal = vchild, arrow horizontal = hchild, parent in parentesis): w1 | w2 i0 -----> w1 (i0) | | v v minibuf w2 (i0) | W2 W1 |--- | W3 i0 ----> w1 (i0) | | minibuf i1 (i0) \ w2 (i1) | w3 (u1) w2 ----- w3 i1 |\ | \ | \ | w2 (i1) | | minibuf w3 (i1) W2 | W4 -------- W3 i1 |\ | i2 (i1) --> w2 (i2) | | | | w3 (i1) w4 (i2) | minibuf | W4 W2 |--- | W5 - ------- W3 i1 | \ | i2 (i1) --> w2 (i2) | | | | w3 (i1) i3 (i2) | \ | w4 (i3) | | minibuf w5 (i3) w4 ------ w5 ------ w3 i1 | \ | \ | i3 (i1) | | \ | w3 (i1) \ | w4 (i3) | | minibuf w5 (i3) I think it is correct up to the last delete of w2. But what the rule should be for eliminating i3 in the last step I don't know. I think this is the desired last step: i1 | \ | \ | w4 (i1) | | | w5 (i1) | | | w3 (i1) | minibuf i1 possibly replaced with i3. Jan D.