From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Minibuffer positioned at a location other than the bottom of the frame? Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 18:01:47 +0200 Message-ID: <83efol6nbo.fsf@gnu.org> References: <5A13F19A.9000502@gmx.at> <83fu97d43z.fsf@gnu.org> <838teu8hu7.fsf@gnu.org> <5A1A96C5.1040203@gmx.at> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1511712173 11633 195.159.176.226 (26 Nov 2017 16:02:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 16:02:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, zhenya1007@gmail.com, john@yates-sheets.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 26 17:02:49 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eIzOH-0002XH-Sb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:02:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57101 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eIzOP-0002jF-9K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 11:02:53 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56174) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eIzNd-0002hC-9p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 11:02:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eIzNa-0001ab-8G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 11:02:05 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:43025) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eIzNa-0001aV-4Y; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 11:02:02 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4942 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1eIzNZ-0001xT-Fi; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 11:02:02 -0500 In-reply-to: <5A1A96C5.1040203@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Sun, 26 Nov 2017 11:26:13 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:220465 Archived-At: > Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 11:26:13 +0100 > From: martin rudalics > CC: zhenya1007@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > >> There I raised the notion of (optionally) moving the modeline to the top of each window and positioning the > >> minibuffer to the top of the frame. > > > > This should be much easier, see > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-10/msg00895.html > > > > and followups. > > I doubt that "Positioning the minibuffer to the top of the frame" would > be "much easier" "Much easier" than positioning it dynamically below the selected window, or some other dynamic positioning. I'm sure you will agree. > When Emacs enlarges the minibuffer window it then has > to move all windows beneath down by the number of lines the minibuffer > window has been enlarged. Why "all"? why not just the next window below the minibuffer? That's what we do now: we resize only the window immediately above the minibuffer. Right? > To not make these windows' texts move down > accordingly (which would constitute a very unpleasent visual experience) > we would have to try to change these windows' start positions and > restore them accordingly when shrinking the minibuffer window back. That's probably true, but we need to redisplay that window anyway, so we can choose a different window-start while we are at that. > Obviously, with point near the top of the window or varying line heights > such an attempt might become very tricky or even impossible. I don't see why it would be impossible. And in any case, this will be an opt-in feature, so those who don't like the result will not use it. > Putting the minibuffer window below some arbitrary (maybe even internal) > window of a frame would not run into such difficulties. I'm okay with that as well, if someone figures out how to implement it.