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: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:49:42 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20090712180623.GA1009@muc.de> <4A65FA0E.6020800@gmx.at> <1248200131.7551.75.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <4A66E607.9030505@gmx.at> <1248280114.7109.33.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <4A67593D.6020908@gmx.at> <1248289454.7109.47.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <4A682C53.2080307@gmx.at> <1248375083.15583.9.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: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1248378607 16581 80.91.229.12 (23 Jul 2009 19:50:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Thomas Lord , rms@gnu.org, cyd@stupidchicken.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, juri@jurta.org, martin rudalics , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, acm@muc.de, drew.adams@oracle.com, Miles Bader To: joakim@verona.se Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 23 21:49:58 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 1MU4Ig-000541-Df for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:49:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58592 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MU4If-00082D-T6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:49:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MU4Ia-00081U-Gk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:49:52 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MU4IV-00080n-O9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:49:51 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33498 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MU4IV-00080k-J8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:49:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com ([209.85.210.172]:58101) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MU4IR-0003kF-Dp; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:49:43 -0400 Original-Received: by yxe2 with SMTP id 2so2083707yxe.14 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:49:42 -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=CeiL7Zk5mEsPHfI01XGNrOXt1Degp0Wn5zOvy35tKYc=; b=F39bKKl9IOMq81N+Doj6KyxzQ3o2o/8wT9x9OdoKxhGQLCJpirl3oqkN/yQknGv47l Ywna3AZND10+VBqTLD8fWLK0SP9npYsQB2CSl3dG2Mt0yv0XfqZidYd3tklYDc5Fa5qX roTXly75gPHWmirI36rYEtn78uxFDDI9QZ+xg= 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=L79YmjXziZmCLcAy7hH2oX03JT4j5Tov6B+PbLSknhYPWv8HjkY8t4HnCAa3dVEovw WMvAQx7lp19uju13xXwDaE2pgZDJCXqmY2398SlqxBaEeLnLoRIybploNOgwRPCCPCq7 R+BXvXpW9cERh4cGB2HXGh20vSD5imvvXok8g= Original-Received: by 10.100.165.13 with SMTP id n13mr3481044ane.18.1248378582652; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:49:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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:113065 Archived-At: On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:17 PM, wrote: >> That is, it seems to me - and yes this is >> necessarily just an opinion about user >> interfaces - that the edit area windows >> should behave exactly like a traditional >> Emacs frame. =C2=A0For example, C-x o navigates >> (normally) just among the edit area windows. >> Normal splitting or deleting of a window changes >> only edit area windows. =C2=A0Programs that look for, >> say, a largest window to use to pop up some >> buffer should look only to the edit area (unless >> explicitly written to do otherwise). =C2=A0It should >> take a special gesture (keystroke or mouse, different >> from C-x o) to select a window in a control panel >> and, once its selected the set of windows in that >> control panel are then the focus (the C-x o ring, >> etc.). > > The way I see window groups, they behave like you describe. I think there is one more part of Thomas suggestion: that there should be default framelets/window groups at each frame border (the 16 configs). It might be a good idea that they are there by default. ECB for example works according to a similar visual model. One way to make it simple to implement that idea could be to have hidden windows corresponding to those framelets (ie the framelets should live inside them). That way iit could be easy to hide/show them and one could make a set of function for handling them. But then we need to have hidden windows though, but that does not seem fantastically difficult. At least not to me that never tried to look at that code ...