From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Davis Herring" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta Subject: Re: New start up splash screen annoyance... Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <46389.128.165.123.18.1190653167.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> References: <87d4waxnw7.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87ejgq3pp6.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Reply-To: herring@lanl.gov NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1190653189 8070 80.91.229.12 (24 Sep 2007 16:59:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:59:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Stephen J. Turnbull" , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Drew Adams , xemacs-beta@xemacs.org To: "Didier Verna" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 24 18:59:43 2007 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 1IZrHa-0001QH-Iz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:59:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IZrHX-0005Jr-Vf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:59:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IZrHU-0005JF-7A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:59:36 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IZrHS-0005Io-JA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:59:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IZrHS-0005Ik-FF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:59:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mailwasher.lanl.gov ([204.121.3.2]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IZrHR-0008Rs-Ru for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:59:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mailrelay3.lanl.gov (mailrelay3.lanl.gov [128.165.4.104]) by mailwasher.lanl.gov (8.13.8/8.13.6/(ccn-5)) with ESMTP id l8OGxUsU032642; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:59:32 -0600 Original-Received: from webmail1.lanl.gov (webmail1.lanl.gov [128.165.4.106]) by mailrelay3.lanl.gov (8.13.8/8.13.8/(ccn-5)) with ESMTP id l8OGxRkc014140; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:59:27 -0600 Original-Received: from webmail1.lanl.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by webmail1.lanl.gov (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l8OGxR7I001486; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:59:27 -0600 Original-Received: (from apache@localhost) by webmail1.lanl.gov (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Submit) id l8OGxRi0001484; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:59:27 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: webmail1.lanl.gov: apache set sender to herring@lanl.gov using -f Original-Received: from 128.165.123.18 (SquirrelMail authenticated user 196434) by webmail.lanl.gov with HTTP; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:59:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8-6.el3.2lanl X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-CTN-5-MailScanner-Information: Please see http://network.lanl.gov/email/virus-scan.php X-CTN-5-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-CTN-5-MailScanner-From: herring@lanl.gov X-Detected-Kernel: 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:79712 gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta:25851 Archived-At: >> After all, what is an Emacs frame but a tiled window manager? We >> should present it that way to the user. > > Actually, Emacs windows are an obsolete concept that today brings us > nothing but additional and unwanted complexity. There should be no > windows. There should be only frames, and if you like the tiling effect, > then Emacs should kindly ask the window manager to place and size its > frames exactly where and how Emacs wants them to be placed and sized. Creating new frames sometimes takes much longer than creating windows -- with a slow X connection, or when using a window manager like twm where every frame created requires user interaction. And Emacs makes good use of its frames: `other-buffer' considers buffers recently but not currently visible -- on the current frame. And it makes no sense at all to support rolling up or iconifying one of two side-by-side frames linked with `follow-mode'; having just one frame prevents that. Some window managers may treat unselected frames less favorably: rendering them as partially transparent, or preventing a program from automatically giving them focus (as we would then very often want to do with C-x 5 o, or rather just C-x o). Furthermore, reimplementing such things as C-x + to use frames would be quite complicated, and we would have to have notions of "frame subtrees" that were entirely invisible to the window manager and yet critical to sane behavior. (And what happens if the user moves or resizes one out of 4 tile-frames, then asks Emacs to rebalance/resize/delete some of those tiles? Do we introduce M-x sorry-emacs-just-kidding-you-can-move-this-frame-back?) Finally, of course, there are issues of widget explosion -- giving each window/frame a toolbar, a menu bar, a title bar, and whatever other decorations takes up a lot of screen real estate, and neither 20 "Emacs ..." buttons nor one "Emacs (20)" button in a panel or so is useful. (Imagine what the Dock on OS X would look like if you iconified them all!) Of course, it would be possible to suppress some or all of the decorations, perhaps including the panel button, but how is a simple Lisp program that currently calls `display-buffer' supposed to decide whether, if it creates a new window/frame, that window/frame is supposed to get a tool bar or not? Do we introduce levels of toolbar-desire so the user can say just how badly they want to have tool bars even if they might take up lots of space for very little use (in, say, *Messages*)? If you really don't like windows, there are plenty of people (I believe Stefan is one, and perhaps the Aqaumacs people) who use `pop-up-frames' and prefer one frame per buffer, and they'd probably be happy to discuss how to best arrange an all-frames Emacs. But it seems somewhat confused to even talk about -removing- windows from Emacs. Davis -- This product is sold by volume, not by mass. If it appears too dense or too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during shipping.