From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: split screen horizontally into three equally spaced sections Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:10:17 +0200 Message-ID: <48EF7E69.1090109@gmail.com> References: <87bpxslyal.fsf@mundaneum.com> <48EF0C30.4010101@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1223655297 24692 80.91.229.12 (10 Oct 2008 16:14:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:14:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien_Vauban?= , help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Nikolaj Schumacher Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 10 18:15:53 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KoKe3-0000HJ-0e for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:15:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34650 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KoKcy-0006ZZ-P7 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:14:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KoKaQ-0005Jd-LW for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:11:30 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KoKaP-0005Ie-2n for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:11:30 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49973 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KoKaO-0005IZ-Tn for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:11:29 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212]:57981) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KoKaO-0007zR-7S for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:11:29 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-151-87.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.151.87]:64029 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1KoKZx-0003Br-3x; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:11:13 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 081010-0, 2008-10-10), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.151.87 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1KoKZx-0003Br-3x. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1KoKZx-0003Br-3x b31a4f077530bfd7d90fed1d2ed48704 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:58674 Archived-At: Nikolaj Schumacher wrote: > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" wrote: > >> Yes, in winsize.el that comes with nXhtml. > > If you don't mind me asking, but why does it? > > It sounds very interesting and useful beyond nxhtml. Why isn't it > packaged on it's own? Because I do not have time to do it in another way. I constantly fix small bugs that I find and then it just takes to much time uploading a file to different places. I do not think it is a problem any more since you can easily get a single file from the nXhtml repository at Launchpad. > (I'm a bit bothered by big modes that do everything. ECB forces its own > window configuration. The Ruby on Rails mode has its own snippet > mechanism. I feel that such bundling limits the overall usefulness.) I really feel the opposite! Not bundling things can make things take forever to setup. In the particular case of winsize.el this is not the case of course, but when it comes to more complex things then I definitively prefer bundling. Remember that complexity tends to grow exponentially with the number of involved things. Bundling lowers the number of possible combinations without any serious restrictions. Any user who prefer shooting themselves in the foot are free to do so, but those who do not have time with it can use the bundle ;-) More seriously another mechanism for bundling would be better. A very good sysstem for version control and dependencies is what I would prefer - if someone has time to write it, test it, etc. And of course get people to use it, mark all old dependencies ... > regards, > Nikolaj Schumacher >