From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Reitter Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: completions - remove window after use? Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:40:09 -0500 Message-ID: <4D83177D-A1F9-47BD-BFA5-E3A1DABDCCC5@gmail.com> References: <61C01A08-8FB6-4908-B9F1-B9F1CE3E3D92@gmail.com> <20091111212658.GD12012@headley> <864oozdg51.wl%lluis@ginnungagap.pc.ac.upc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1258037263 17572 80.91.229.12 (12 Nov 2009 14:47:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:47:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Llu=EDs?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 12 15:47:35 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 1N8axQ-00081A-BL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:47:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46530 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N8axP-0002iZ-NW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:47:31 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N8aqW-0007ye-1D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:40:24 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N8aqO-0007wu-7A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:40:21 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33598 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N8aqM-0007wT-VC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:40:15 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-vw0-f176.google.com ([209.85.212.176]:58639) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N8aqM-0003gJ-Ik for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:40:14 -0500 Original-Received: by vws6 with SMTP id 6so665914vws.14 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:40:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=iIVrPMw+l4o7E3fuCtPYeof9QYBs2CbYIL6VsAwrInM=; b=q/Y2kVi6bxfIVR23oMTfA39cq5iIiXQ1Sn/WdDEAuiXK2PHrLnyJq32L8ztCHktEbS w4Y+PhhOb/a6lJBSwfqOZ3Yg8PflI3bSJfD0//RIFG7iiJeuZR7PC2PbCYgWK8y+BYMO sM5sYZzcv+vfngQnUPHmD9mT+j5JigQP61giY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=kBTd/nCtcmvsFc1CDPR+VFC8ajwANebhOFlG1qBE6J5+VyHWR6g2LyinPq1IaG/zur Qr7d18i1GIksXBMkc9WdcexYE6zPlYLMJQ99pulIFD1FWsdu+OCwPwAhN+QGGVhYQxo2 5aUxZMKJ4XrHFMtY6Bu9F01Q0n+9ynolHP4hA= Original-Received: by 10.220.121.131 with SMTP id h3mr3651117vcr.42.1258036814003; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:40:14 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from scarlett.local (pool-96-235-8-122.pitbpa.east.verizon.net [96.235.8.122]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 35sm1333753yxh.69.2009.11.12.06.40.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:40:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <864oozdg51.wl%lluis@ginnungagap.pc.ac.upc.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:116885 Archived-At: On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:30 AM, Llu=EDs wrote: > 1 4 > 2 5 > 3 5 > ---- page boundary > 6 9 > 7 10 > 8 >=20 > Still not sure if this is a good idea, as it would make not much sense = when > user moves in a line-by-line basis through the buffer. Not a good idea for the reason you've stated. We don't really have = "page boundaries" as an enforced concept, since a buffer is not a piece = of paper. The only thing that happens is window-wise "paging" with tab, = but the buffer can still be used line by line. Think of someone = scrolling with the mouse scroll wheel. > Also, layout should be recalculated when user changes window height... So, is it worth the effort? > As for searching, it's "page-wise", so not much problem would arise = from > here. It introduces more paging.=