From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: patch for optional inhibit of delete-other-windows(IDE feature) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:09:58 +0200 Message-ID: <84D8FEFE8D23E94E9C2A6F0C58EE07E347AEF1@mucmail3.sdm.de> References: <4815C977.3040502@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1209543046 31593 80.91.229.12 (30 Apr 2008 08:10:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:10:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: , Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 30 10:11:22 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 1Jr7PO-0007hq-6C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:11:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53703 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jr7Oh-0005a1-1j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:10:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jr7OM-0005Pz-CM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:10:18 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jr7OH-0005N6-DW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:10:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57899 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jr7OH-0005Mx-77 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:10:13 -0400 Original-Received: from world2.sdm.de ([192.76.162.230]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jr7OB-00042k-3u; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:10:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mucns1 ([10.40.232.18] helo=mucns1.sdm.de) by world2.sdm.de with esmtp (MTA) id 1Jr7O4-0008DO-F3; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:10:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=sdmmail1.sdm.de) by mucns1.sdm.de with esmtp (MTA) id 1Jr7O4-00088B-2M; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:10:00 +0200 Original-Received: from mucmail3.sdm.de ([10.40.232.45]) by sdmmail1.sdm.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:09:59 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message In-Reply-To: <4815C977.3040502@gnu.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: patch for optional inhibit of delete-other-windows(IDE feature) Thread-Index: AcipL1M1XRv8HYrrTp2EI/bF+e+VOABagFTQ X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2008 08:09:59.0480 (UTC) FILETIME=[957D6380:01C8AA99] X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:96205 Archived-At: Jason Rumney wrote: > joakim@verona.se wrote: >=20 >> How do you feel about the current interface: >>=20 >> delete-other-windows t, inhibits delete-other-windows >>=20 >> other-window numeric arg, the arg will group windows together, when >> other-window is performed, only windows in the same group are >> considered. I plan to do this by adding an argument to next_window. >>=20 >> The parameters might obvioulsy be renamed. >>=20 >=20 > The first definitely needs renaming. Its value is used to determine > the behaviour of the current window (not other windows), and its > value is used in the inverse way that the name suggests. Perhaps > inhibit-deletion would be better. The downside is that the rename > loses the association with the function delete-other-windows, but is > that the only function that needs to look at this property anyway? no, definitly delete-window too - in case of ECB it must be ensured that a user can not delete one of the special windows... Currently the advice of delete-window prevents from this.... Then split-window-* because such special windows must also not splitted...