From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: RE: When do you prefer frames instead of windows? Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:09:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <23912630-66fb-4c75-a414-33211b943e5a@default> References: < > <> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416939066 18680 80.91.229.3 (25 Nov 2014 18:11:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:11:06 +0000 (UTC) To: Joost Kremers , help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 25 19:10:57 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XtKZk-00007F-MV for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:10:56 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58847 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtKZk-0007eV-63 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:10:56 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38677) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtKZ3-0007ak-9a for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:10:22 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtKYt-0006vi-KQ for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:10:13 -0500 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:47749) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtKYt-0006vA-D8 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:10:03 -0500 Original-Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id sAPIA0K7025935 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:10:01 GMT Original-Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sAPI9xbJ007729 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:10:00 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0011.oracle.com (abhmp0011.oracle.com [141.146.116.17]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sAPI9xg0023175; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:09:59 GMT In-Reply-To: <> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8.2 (807160) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.81 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:101184 Archived-At: > > I would ask an opposite question: IF you could use Emacs frames > > as easily as you can use Emacs windows, in what scenarios would > > you prefer using Emacs windows, and why? >=20 > The one thing I like about Emacs windows as opposed to frames is > that they resize automatically: when you create one, another window > is reduced in size, so that the new window doesn't cover it, and > when you delete one, another one grows in order to occupy the space > that becomes available. Agreed, but in a way you are making a virtue of necessity. From the moment that the design is such that windows cannot overlap, they *must* be resized, repositioned within the frame, or replaced by another window, as the only possible adjustments for visibility. Frames can overlap. That is a strength, not a weakness. It is an additional possibility, but they need not overlap. Nothing prevents a set of frames from having the same limited behavior that you like in Emacs windows: tiling, replacing each other, resizing relative to others shown, etc. In addition or alternatively, frames can overlap each other (by default). Are there advantages to overlapping and arbitrary (pixel-level) positioning? I think so. The analog to overlapping, for windows, is to turn on line truncation and allow an adjacent window more space. IOW, when you want to see more of one and are willing to forego seeing some of the other (but still see some of it), that's what you do with windows. (For the vertical case, just resize.) > I tend to work in a single window occupying a maximised frame, > and when I want/need to do something else, I usually switch to > that buffer. AFAIK this automatic resizing isn't possible or > at least not as easy with frames.=20 It is possible. It is not provided (so no, it is not as easy). =20 > I find this a definite advantage of windows over frames, Agreed. > and to be honest, I don't see what advantages frames have over > windows. (You mention they have more features/possibilities, > but I'm not sure which features you mean...) Whatever can be done with windows could be done with frames, AFAICT. That all of that is not easily available is another story. In addition, frames can be positioned arbitrarily. They are not constrained to be within anything, other than your display. And positioning is at the pixel level. That's about it, AFAIK. There are some other frame parameters that might not have analogs for windows (can't think of them, offhand), but essentially it's about arbitrary positioning. (There is also iconifying, but whether you look at that as a useful feature is up to you.)