From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Subwindow terminology Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:18:15 +0100 Message-ID: <4EB7B067.1060904@gmx.at> References: <87wrbfrxqz.fsf@gnu.org> <4EB51CCC.6040806@gmx.at> <87hb2iohql.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <4EB53A16.3030604@gmx.at> <4EB64A64.8080902@gmx.at> <878vntob44.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <4EB6689F.1000202@gmx.at> <874nygon6g.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1320661111 15992 80.91.229.12 (7 Nov 2011 10:18:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 10:18:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dave@boostpro.com, Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 07 11:18:27 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1RNMHa-00083N-Tp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:18:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:32795 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNMHa-0006A4-A2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 05:18:26 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:51586) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNMHX-00069n-89 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 05:18:24 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNMHS-0001jX-U7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 05:18:23 -0500 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:56989) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNMHS-0001jP-Hc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 05:18:18 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Nov 2011 10:18:17 -0000 Original-Received: from 62-47-48-41.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.48.41]) [62.47.48.41] by mail.gmx.net (mp064) with SMTP; 07 Nov 2011 11:18:17 +0100 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+1E8diHP6119qNW23YwZm8TVBhIJtOoYAPGBPozJ Rvc6HoD2NZajup User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) In-Reply-To: <874nygon6g.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 213.165.64.22 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:145927 Archived-At: > No, I'll just deal with the fallout when XEmacs needs to sync to this > ill-conceived mess. Martin doesn't write anything about why history > of a window tree matters to Lisp programmers, Because Martin doesn't care. > but instead writes many > things like > > But since I apparently failed to convey the semantics of this > variable in the Elisp manual, someone else will have to take care > of writing such a description. > > and > > > Why do you need to talk about subwindows at all? > > Because I didn't give this a thought yet ;-) > > If he needs to repeat those statements at this point, y'all are up to > your necks in the Big Muddy. The term subwindow was in code and documentations for many years. If people decide, at a certain point in time, that they don't like the term any more, they recognize too late in what kind of Muddy they've been all that time. > And reading *all* of both bugs doesn't explain why history of a window > tree matters, except to Martin personally because he's the one who has > to make sure invariants are maintained across operations on window > trees. But the rest of us *using* the API are counting on him to get > those invariants right. As stated repeatedly I never cared about the history of a window tree and will not do so in the future. > Any place you feel a *need* to use the term "subwindow" needs more > thought about what you're actually doing. :-) (Of course I have an > ulterior motive here, in that XEmacs uses the term "subwindow" for a > completely different kind of object, a "native widget", but I think > that sentence is nevertheless true.) Meanwhile I removed all references to the term subwindow from code and documentation. martin