Buffers menu question

Buffers menu question

[Miles Bader]

I changed the `Buffers' menu to not display directory names with
buffers if uniquify is active -- this is because uniquify will add
parts of the directory name itself, at least until buffer names are
unique.

However, this may not be the right thing; perhaps I should just add a
separate variable to control whether directory names are displayed in
the menu, e.g., `buffers-menu-include-directories' or something.

Does anyone have an opinion?

Thanks,

-Miles
-- 
I'd rather be consing.

Re: Buffers menu question

[Richard Stallman]

    I changed the `Buffers' menu to not display directory names with
    buffers if uniquify is active -- this is because uniquify will add
    parts of the directory name itself, at least until buffer names are
    unique.

That seems right to me.

    However, this may not be the right thing; perhaps I should just add a
    separate variable to control whether directory names are displayed in
    the menu, e.g., `buffers-menu-include-directories' or something.

Having uniquify automatically turn this off is good.  Users might
perhaps want to be able to turn it off even if they do not use
uniquify.  Adding that feature might be nice (though I am not sure it is
worth adding).  But don't remove the one you just added.

Re: Buffers menu question

[Miles Bader]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>     I changed the `Buffers' menu to not display directory names with
>     buffers if uniquify is active.
>
> Having uniquify automatically turn this off is good.  Users might
> perhaps want to be able to turn it off even if they do not use
> uniquify.  Adding that feature might be nice (though I am not sure it is
> worth adding).

I added a tristate `On / Off / On-Unless-Uniquify-is-Active' option
`buffers-menu-show-directories', which defaults to
On-Unless-Uniquify-is-Active.

I also added `buffers-menu-show-status' option, because I hate the way
the menu looks when it shows modified/read-only status for buffers.

-Miles
-- 
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it
has to be us.  -- Jerry Garcia

Re: Buffers menu question

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp>
> Date: 25 Apr 2002 13:36:03 +0900
> 
> I also added `buffers-menu-show-status' option, because I hate the way
> the menu looks when it shows modified/read-only status for buffers.

Wouldn't the buffer list look prettier if the modified/read-only
status were displayed to the left of the buffer names?  As of now, if
the status is displayed (which is the default), the % and * mnemonics
are not aligned.  I think if they were aligned at the left, it would
look better.

Re: Buffers menu question

[Miles Bader]

"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:
> Wouldn't the buffer list look prettier if the modified/read-only
> status were displayed to the left of the buffer names?  As of now, if
> the status is displayed (which is the default), the % and * mnemonics
> are not aligned.  I think if they were aligned at the left, it would
> look better.

I agree, but it's not really possible to align them properly in a
variable-width font.

For this reason, I considered modifying the lucid menu code to support
true alignment of parts of menu-items*.  While I think that probably
wouldn't be too hard, I'm not sure what the right thing to do for other
menu packages is (Lesstif & the various non-X platforms).

*Probably by doing something like making it look for magic characters
 in menu-item strings, e.g. TAB or something otherwise non-displayable.

-Miles
-- 
Run away!  Run away!

Re: Buffers menu question

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
> Date: 26 Apr 2002 21:33:26 +0900
> 
> "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:
> > Wouldn't the buffer list look prettier if the modified/read-only
> > status were displayed to the left of the buffer names?
> 
> I agree, but it's not really possible to align them properly in a
> variable-width font.

Even though they will be the first characters on a line?

> For this reason, I considered modifying the lucid menu code to support
> true alignment of parts of menu-items.

That would be nice as well, I think.

Re: Buffers menu question

[Miles Bader]

"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:
> > I agree, but it's not really possible to align them properly in a
> > variable-width font.
>
> Even though they will be the first characters on a line?

Yes. 

Think about it:  your attempt to make a constant width field will
involve something like the characters `*', `%', and SPC, all of which
are different widths -- and you don't even know the widths (not that
would do you much good if you did).

For an example, try out `msb-mode'.  It rearranges the Buffers menu,
puts the buffer status on the left side like you suggest.  It apparently
tries to line everything up, and the result is quite crappy looking.

-Miles
-- 
A zen-buddhist walked into a pizza shop and
said, "Make me one with everything."

Re: Buffers menu question

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

   I agree, but it's not really possible to align them properly in a
   variable-width font.

do people actually use variable width fonts?

(i'm still struggling to get stay out of console mode...)

thi

Re: Buffers menu question

[Miles Bader]

Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@glug.org> writes:
>    I agree, but it's not really possible to align them properly in a
>    variable-width font.
> 
> do people actually use variable width fonts?

In fact, they're the default.  [for menus]

-Miles
-- 
P.S.  All information contained in the above letter is false,
      for reasons of military security.

Re: Buffers menu question

[Richard Stallman]

    Wouldn't the buffer list look prettier if the modified/read-only
    status were displayed to the left of the buffer names?  As of now, if
    the status is displayed (which is the default), the % and * mnemonics
    are not aligned.  I think if they were aligned at the left, it would
    look better.

It might be better.  Give it a try if you feel like.

    I agree, but it's not really possible to align them properly in a
    variable-width font.

They can be aligned if they are before the buffer names.
That might be a reason for putting them at the left.

Re: Buffers menu question

[Miles Bader]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>     I agree, but it's not really possible to align them properly in a
>     variable-width font.
> 
> They can be aligned if they are before the buffer names.
> That might be a reason for putting them at the left.

Doesn't work -- the names themselves end up being unaligned (becuase the
characters used to display the status are not of consistent width in a
variable-width font), which looks even worse.

-Miles
-- 
Next to fried food, the South has suffered most from oratory.
  			-- Walter Hines Page

Re: Buffers menu question

[Richard Stallman]

    Think about it:  your attempt to make a constant width field will
    involve something like the characters `*', `%', and SPC, all of which
    are different widths -- and you don't even know the widths (not that
    would do you much good if you did).

Just because the solution is not certain to work does not mean it
won't work well enough in practice.  In the past in some contexts I
saw that many punctuation characters had the same width as space in
many fonts.

It may be possible to pick pairs of alternate characters that give
good results in most real cases.

Re: Buffers menu question

[Miles Bader]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>     Think about it:  your attempt to make a constant width field will
>     involve something like the characters `*', `%', and SPC, all of which
>     are different widths -- and you don't even know the widths (not that
>     would do you much good if you did).
> 
> Just because the solution is not certain to work does not mean it
> won't work well enough in practice.  In the past in some contexts I
> saw that many punctuation characters had the same width as space in
> many fonts.

Perhaps that's true, but of course they should probably also be
characters that convey the desired meaning to users.  In the case of
buffer status, the conventional characters are `*' and `%', which in
the font I used for menus are radically different widths (that's why I
sound so adamant -- it really does look bad for me).  [A quick check
shows the same is true for the default menu font.]

-Miles
-- 
Would you like fries with that?

Re: Buffers menu question

[Richard Stallman]

    Perhaps that's true, but of course they should probably also be
    characters that convey the desired meaning to users.  In the case of
    buffer status, the conventional characters are `*' and `%', which in
    the font I used for menus are radically different widths (that's why I
    sound so adamant -- it really does look bad for me).

Whether * and % have the same width would be relevant
if the idea were to use * and % as alternatives in one column.
However, actually they are used independently.  So the question
is whether we can find an alternative to * that has the same width
(in common fonts) as *, and an alternative to % that has the same width
(in common fonts) as %.

Re: Buffers menu question

[Miles Bader]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> Whether * and % have the same width would be relevant
> if the idea were to use * and % as alternatives in one column.
> However, actually they are used independently.  So the question
> is whether we can find an alternative to * that has the same width
> (in common fonts) as *, and an alternative to % that has the same width
> (in common fonts) as %.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.  Usually, one displays
either `*' or SPC, followed by `%' or SPC, and the problem that the
widths of `*' and `%' are radically different from that of SPC.

If you could use something besides SPC that was visually undistracting
enough to not be a problem, you could use that as alternative to the SPC
character.  However, it seems certain that you couldn't use the _same_
character as the `SPC alternative' for both `*' and '%' (the width `*'
often seems to be quite narrow, whereas the width of `%' is often very
wide), so this might lead to having a very confusing jumble of
cryptic-looking characters...

Do you have any ideas of possible characters?

-Miles
-- 
"1971 pickup truck; will trade for guns"

Re: Buffers menu question

[Eli Zaretskii]

On 30 Apr 2002, Miles Bader wrote:

> Usually, one displays
> either `*' or SPC, followed by `%' or SPC, and the problem that the
> widths of `*' and `%' are radically different from that of SPC.
> 
> If you could use something besides SPC that was visually undistracting
> enough to not be a problem, you could use that as alternative to the SPC
> character.

Could we use the same characters, `*' and `%' respectively, but make them 
invisible?  Like display them with the foreground identical to the 
background?

Re: Buffers menu question

[Miles Bader]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:
> Could we use the same characters, `*' and `%' respectively, but make them 
> invisible?  Like display them with the foreground identical to the 
> background?

That would require special support from the menu code; if we're going to
add that, we may as well add the ability to do real alignment.

-Miles
-- 
[|nurgle|]  ddt- demonic? so quake will have an evil kinda setting? one that 
            will  make every christian in the world foamm at the mouth? 
[iddt]      nurg, that's the goal 

Re: Buffers menu question

[Richard Stallman]

    If you could use something besides SPC that was visually undistracting
    enough to not be a problem, you could use that as alternative to the SPC
    character.  However, it seems certain that you couldn't use the _same_
    character as the `SPC alternative' for both `*' and '%' (the width `*'
    often seems to be quite narrow, whereas the width of `%' is often very
    wide), so this might lead to having a very confusing jumble of
    cryptic-looking characters...

No, I don't have practical experience with fonts nowadays.
It was on other systems, in the past, that I noticed many
punctuation characters typically had similar widths.

If there are no suitable alternatives for * and % today, perhaps the
best thing to do is double them and put them inside parens, and leave
them at the end.  That would make them more visible, which I think is
the aim.

If the suggestion to display them with a foreground that matches
the background can actually be implemented, that could be good.
Then they could go at the front and everything could be aligned.