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: Tabbed buffers Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:45:31 -0500 Message-ID: References: <18330.23354.579245.68671@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <87ejc5sf4l.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <18330.29609.396872.678539@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <87wspxqwjv.fsf@catnip.gol.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1201394826 3912 80.91.229.12 (27 Jan 2008 00:47:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:47:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: nickrob@snap.net.nz, emacs-devel@gnu.org, miles@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 27 01:47:26 2008 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 1JIvgA-0003V9-It for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 01:47:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIvfk-0004VW-2p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:46:56 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JIveP-00040p-Ep for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:45:33 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JIveN-00040B-UH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:45:33 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIveN-000402-P8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:45:31 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JIveN-00024y-OP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:45:31 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JIveN-00008W-5p; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:45:31 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:47:48 -0500) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:87613 Archived-At: So the behavior of display-buffer could be configured to either use the current window, or pop a new window, or pop a new tab or pop a new frame. When a window has multiple tabs, only one of them is displayed at a time. For most purposes, the non-current tabs can be ignored. However, for purposes of displaying a buffer, switching tabs could be one method `display-buffer' can use. For what it's worth, I think that if we introduce this notion of tab, we should change ttys to use tabs rather than frames since tty frames behave much more like tabs. Of course multiple ttys would each get its own frame. Tabs should be supported on ttys, but we should not get rid of the current frame support on ttys. The main reason we have frames on ttys is to reduce the difference between handling of ttys and handling of graphics displays. People normally don't use multiple frames on ttys, and that is ok, people can continue not to use them. But getting rid of them would just mean trouble.