From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: split screen horizontally into three equally spaced sections Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:36:46 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87bpxslyal.fsf@mundaneum.com> <48EF0C30.4010101@gmail.com> <48EF7E69.1090109@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 1223667454 15185 80.91.229.12 (10 Oct 2008 19:37:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:37:34 +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 21:38:22 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 1KoNoa-0007Ml-EY for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:38:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57154 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KoNnW-0007n9-EO for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:37:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KoNn8-0007jH-U4 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:36:50 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KoNn8-0007i8-9d for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:36:50 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45052 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KoNn8-0007i2-3k for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:36:50 -0400 Original-Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.189]:3818) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KoNn7-0004yL-Jb for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:36:50 -0400 Original-Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c7so377396nfi.26 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:36:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=FWeZaxiNLUWItDSbgRt38mgWCk2pSHCFESDveqoQC8s=; b=VU/qtiiSOvVEbKVvC8eu1e0T3AVG7sWv02mlptiFUoJMsCtfBaPXGiDqxJAGF13mVb 8OD8PXq5ZblTx+SkhGbH3klXWvpeaey58Hfm5NXp3n9LnnRk2lVLL5b97UDSTDeieYnJ j8CB53aX+6aGvv6gztt6URAI79lfTEQusrXRY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=CgdMi9AaH7XDlJU3Xah78nQJPbBqqnrZODM8ZWuxPgqFsRky626k9vKdQSOdLc5ODT AN7utfgnAo4uIzFDth5jEeN6kyBo5gmX53iNI+Fd9d5j6r+6gf1KG78WtsPciJUAiO+j gsrJuyAviY+n7Q2Sf6o6ej+waTJ78Vu/LOkE0= Original-Received: by 10.86.80.5 with SMTP id d5mr2035273fgb.19.1223667407025; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.86.65.3 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:36:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:58679 Archived-At: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Nikolaj Schumacher wrote: > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" wrote: > >> 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. > > Exactly. If two things are tied-together, there are more things > involved. If they are separate, complexity is actually reduced. I think you deliberately are trying to hide my point ;-) Yes, you are right in a sense, but my point is that you reduce complexity by binding things together. When you bundle elisp libraries you know which versions are included and thus reduce complexity since the version dimension is fixed. > We're talking about slightly different things, I think. When there are > real dependencies, I don't mind packaging. It's a sane choice in > absence of package management. But many packages have artificial > dependencies that wouldn't have to exist. I do some cleanup on that whenever I have time ... ;-) > I don't know about your package, so I don't want to make any > assumptions. But, for example, ECB can only reasonably used with the > included (brain-dead) window management. There is no way to just use > the (excellent) class browser. That's a serious restriction... I do not know ECB, but I think you should look a bit closer if you think the window management is brain-dead. I think Eric has struggled quite a lot with the somewhat limited window management capabilities that are available currently in Emacs. This has been discussed on the developers list. If you are willing to work with this I think there are still things to be done. Please look in the archive. You might be right that the coupling window-management/cloase browser is unnecessary, I don't know. But I know that Eric has made some rather silent complaints that he is doing most of the work on CEDET et al himself. So there is room for you there as well! > It seems that winsize is optional, as well as separately usable. I don't > mind that they're in the same zip file. I just think that bundling > generally increases the risk that they needlessly get tangled together. > I hope that doesn't happen. It happens all the time when you are in a hurry. It also happens when primitives you need are not available in Emacs. Getting them into Emacs often takes a long time because of the limited number of developers. While waiting for that things must be bundled (or you have to double the code which is much, much worse). To sum it up: Most of the time what people think is bad bundling is more a lack of understanding in the beholder. And of course a lack of time on both sides. The hard thing is to find reasonable ways to work with the limited resources we have. I have found that some bundling is often an effective way. > regards, > Nikolaj Schumacher >