From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [rudalics@gmx.at: enlarge-window with preserve-before non-nil] Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 11:59:31 -0400 Message-ID: References: <427E756D.6070908@swipnet.se> <4286481B.6070702@swipnet.se> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1116288119 28839 80.91.229.2 (17 May 2005 00:01:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 00:01:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 17 02:01:57 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DXpVE-0007iG-FM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 May 2005 02:00:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DXl43-0000lf-2q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 16 May 2005 15:15:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DXPFW-0004uK-2e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 15 May 2005 15:58:06 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DXPFT-0004ti-W1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 15 May 2005 15:58:04 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DXLYX-0004Bw-Ox for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 15 May 2005 12:01:30 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DXLeB-0007K4-II for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 15 May 2005 12:07:19 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1DXLWd-0004t1-Bl; Sun, 15 May 2005 11:59:31 -0400 Original-To: "Jan D." In-reply-to: <4286481B.6070702@swipnet.se> (jan.h.d@swipnet.se) 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:37163 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:37163 | W4 W2 |--- | W5 - ------- W3 i1 | \ | i2 (i1) --> w2 (i2) | | | | w3 (i1) i3 (i2) | \ | w4 (i3) | | minibuf w5 (i3) That structure is correct. w4 ------ w5 ------ w3 i1 | \ | \ | i3 (i1) | | \ | w3 (i1) \ | w4 (i3) | | minibuf w5 (i3) That structure is erroneous. i3 should not exist. I think it is correct up to the last delete of w2. But what the rule should be for eliminating i3 in the last step I don't know. I think this is the desired last step: i1 | \ | \ | w4 (i1) | | | w5 (i1) | | | w3 (i1) | minibuf i1 possibly replaced with i3. The incorrect structure is in i3, so I think it should eliminate i3. The criterion for doing so is that i3 is a vchild of its parent and also has a vchild. That should never occur. After the code operates on i3, putting it in place of i2, it check if i3 is a vchild and has a vchild. If so, it should to eliminate i3, putting w4 into its place in the structure, and make w3 be the next of w5. Want to implement that? (The same thing should be done with hchild.)