RE: "Adobe Brackets like" editing in emacs

[arthur miller <arthur.miller@live.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2305 bytes --]

I was thinking of the split-window as emacs already has it built in. It would be probably
possible to code something with semantic. Or opening in a pop-up window, like new emacs window.
Or maybe doing some connection between two buffers something similar with multiple cursors, probably
some other way as well.

But putting it below the line currently edited in same buffer, without any special borders is probably most user
friendly if one thinks in term of human-computer interaction. It is less eye and attention distracting. Editing in another
window requires one to split attention and to eventually close the window after (which probably could be automated too).
There are also borders, scrollbars etc to consider if opened in another buffer/window.

It is kind-of subtle, but quite relevant difference for the workflow if the content of another file is brought directly in the buffer
as if the content is part of same file. 

It might also be just my subjective feeling and perception at the moment :).


> From: alan.schmitt@polytechnique.org
> To: arthur.miller@live.com
> CC: rms@gnu.org; emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: "Adobe Brackets like" editing in emacs
> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:29:17 +0100
> 
> Hello Arthur,
> 
> arthur miller <arthur.miller@live.com> writes:
> 
> > As I think more of it, I can see it as a folding of code. Emacs already
> > supports folding of code (with a minor mode) which
> > I don't use so much. "Quick edit" could be seen as code folding, from
> > different files; for example if we call a macro in .c file
> > defined in some .h file, one could invoke a "quick edit" to "fold-out" a
> > macro, edit it and continue on with coding .c file.
> >
> > Or if we call an elisp function, we could "unfold it" in place, edit it,
> > and continue on with the code where function was called.
> >
> > Hope it offers some more clarification and use-case scenario.
> 
> Does it have to be in the same buffer? In other words, if a command
> opened the definition of the current function/css class/tag in a new
> window, with the cursor positioned at the definition, would it be
> sufficient? I watched the video, and I don't see why the definition has
> to be unfolded in the current buffer.
> 
> Alan
 		 	   		   		 	   		  

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2781 bytes --]