Re: split-window-preferred-function

[Tassilo Horn <tassilo@member.fsf.org>]

Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes:

Hi Juri,

>> BTW, do we want a `split-width-threshold'?
>
> In my initial patch I presented the variable `split-width-threshold',
> but in the final installed patch I dropped this variable, because I
> realized that it is not necessary.
>
> The reason is simple: there is no sense to have more than two
> automatically horizontally split side-by-side windows.  For instance,
> I use the smallest readable font and on a wide screen I get 200
> columns.

I get 221 columns on my 24" (1900 dots wide) display.  There already are
30" displays out there that are 2500 dots wide.  Three side-by-side
windows are ok with them.  So IMO your assumption is not valid.

> Splitting them in three parts gives less than 80-column wide windows
> that is not comfortable width to work in most buffers.

Generally I'd agree that windows with less than 80 columns are not
comfortable, but that's a thing a user should decide.

> However, what is very much necessary, and what is still missing in
> `split-window-preferred-horizontally' is the ability to split
> _vertically_ in horizontally split windows.

Indeed, vertical splitting if horizontal splitting won't work (and the
other way round) would be a good feature.  But I had a different
implementation in mind.  How about my idea I described in
<871w5oo2qa.fsf@member.fsf.org>?

Bye,
Tassilo