From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Infrastructural complexity. Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:24:34 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20090712180623.GA1009@muc.de> <1247784574.6302.83.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <1247787842.6302.90.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <1247793496.6302.112.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <1247797261.6302.137.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1247797495 2361 80.91.229.12 (17 Jul 2009 02:24:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:24:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Chong Yidong , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Juri Linkov , Stefan Monnier , Alan Mackenzie , Drew Adams To: Thomas Lord Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 17 04:24:47 2009 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 1MRd7u-0003FO-Q7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:24:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54865 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MRd7u-00020S-7I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:24:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MRd7p-0001xv-8d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:24:41 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MRd7k-0001rA-HC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:24:40 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40445 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MRd7k-0001qu-86 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:24:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com ([209.85.218.219]:60783) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MRd7j-000355-Sv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:24:36 -0400 Original-Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so558334bwz.42 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:24:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Cv+chwtGwxzBWBL4Qy19kXo5C3M8GrKhbat8PFTqnqI=; b=hU/evjwEFFQoHbf0sMTkzrvGpwJCO70cMErgQ+QSIgIncLBfc61nh6M4eTT4eZoG8/ 02G2Pa3NQTVP+gqyMmEi3h3SAv7MKfjQDjp2WtmlgPTz05AWrKXHCXUICvGAzKgOEktp 9ABpsgMkZc3IFRqq1+c4GaAzHf7j50EbGnh60= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=RqDgrdoIikjI9EjM0RXh64T+S8YAAg5adXIVCWLbZ7JoTRaZKrsQ984UKqUuEKcE17 2118uLofJgmduV6l3SuZEGD391kQ6JCu9mjsM3IZxP+R30leuoP3qBUw6geedD9WcM9Q CGiCAQLXZXOARNg8CY5JDPXeklW6NXm1ZNZCo= Original-Received: by 10.223.113.68 with SMTP id z4mr85901fap.72.1247797474542; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:24:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1247797261.6302.137.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:112592 Archived-At: On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:21 AM, Thomas Lord wrote: > On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 03:29 +0200, Lennart Borgman wrote: > >> That might be a thing for the actually used user interfaces, but on >> the devel side I see no reason to put in that restriction. Rather it >> could be on option to set that restriction on the user side. > > [context: restrict or don't restrict "framelettes" to > one level of nesting below frames, etc.] > > I just don't see what rules you'd reasonably > make up for that nesting in various primitives. > I can imagine rules that can be implemented but > not rules that have a rationale. I was not thinking about directly implementing them in the primitives. Rather in the user commands. > I'm glad you (in unquoted stuff) ack seeing my > concern about the nesting issues and understand > where I'm coming from with my proposal. > > I think my version is *probably* easier to > implement, although that only has a loose correlation > with "likely to be implemented sooner". > > Thanks, > -t Thanks for your thoughts.