Re: New balance-windows

[Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>]

Ehud Karni wrote:

>>I think Pascal is right. Though I think Ehud has made a very nice try I
>>believe the split tree must be used. There is not enough information to
>>solve the problem otherwise.
>>    
>>
>
>I think that balancing the windows should be done based on geometry
>ONLY. What do I care how this geometry was reached ?
>
>The split tree may cause technical difficulties to the redisplay
>engine, but it should be solved there.
>  
>
You are right, I am overstating the split tree. Any way it is not 
available now from elisp code.

However I think the problem ought to be solved as if we are looking at a 
tree that could be thought of as a split tree. That tree can be 
constructed from the geometry only - except for certain cases where you 
need to know the actual split tree, but in this cases you can try and 
test. (The cases where the windows meat like a + sign, maybe there are 
more but I can't see any other at the moment.) In this constructed tree 
a node can have any number of childs.

Solving it that way should lead to symmetrical solutions I believe.