From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: special buffer frames again Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 15:33:36 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1178048080 18152 80.91.229.12 (1 May 2007 19:34:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 19:34:40 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 01 21:34:37 2007 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 1Hiy7R-0002FS-Gk for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 May 2007 21:34:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HiyDl-00089Y-9j for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 May 2007 15:41:09 -0400 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newshub.stanford.edu!postnews.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.umontreal.ca!news.umontreal.ca.POSTED!not-for-mail Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 14:33:37 -0500 Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:zaGFP2pcA29z+txLW0j/BzjwK0I= Original-Lines: 56 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 132.204.27.213 Original-X-Trace: sv3-PkSfRYQzw7/ohXVcup0B2cPNPKBbB7rYaoil4Y+JWsf4TOYyPvtKDVELVcPZZpzd/voER2xbLqhlZ8t!nUK+c3OGTTQEYn8qwdi1n+YM7xsKNMQrpFRY6IxOyPrM/Z6To0QJ8Kn3o7cGtbzNXZ0eMn8jR2Wb!i4OYqeIALmhpeZdW3g== Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@umontreal.ca X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@umontreal.ca X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.34 Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:147848 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:43449 Archived-At: > I don't say that `pop-up-frames' = t should be the default value or that > everyone should adopt it. I do think that testing does not reflect this > use case anywhere near as much as the nil case. Of course. >> And more to the point, he specifically wants frames to be >> iconified rather than deleted, > Yes, I'm aware that one Emacs developer does have that preference ;-). > As you and I have discussed, this can also depend on the window manager. > In Windows, for instance, animated iconification can be distracting, and it > stacks stuff in the task bar (even if grouped in one Emacs icon, on XP). Mine stack up in a "icon-manager", which is similar, except it's stacked vertically rather than horizontally (and there's no grouping in menus when size becomes a problem). Maybe a more significant difference is that my window-manager is configured to not auto-place new windows, so whenever Emacs creates a new frame I have to manually place it. So remembering placement is particularly important. > I never understood your preference, but I respect it. I'd like to stand > over your shoulder for an hour, to see how you use Emacs. I find it hard > to imagine that automatic iconification of frames that are no longer in > use would not be annoying, but I'm open to learning ;-). I have 2 separate icon-managers: one for Emacs windows, and another for the rest. So my Emacs icon-manager acts as a "buffer list". So I can just select the relevant buffer with the mouse rather than use C-x b. > Thought experiment: Imagine if Emacs windows were always iconified instead > of simply disappearing when you are done with them - do you think many users > would complain? I'll bet that such a feature would be removed within 48 > hours. I'm not sure I see the relation. To me it's more like buffers: buffers can be displayed or (not in which case they're like iconified, visible in the buffer-list). Some users are bothered by the ever growing list of buffers, but they can always use C-x k when it's a problem. And I do the same: basically all my frames are "dedicated", so if I do C-x k, it deletes the relevant frame. In any case, the main problem for me with deletion of frames is the loss of information (mostly placement). > FWIW, the OP specifically pointed to the annoyance of iconification - he was > looking for a way to eliminate that. Maybe you have a suggestion for him, > explaining how you avoid this annoyance - or how you avoid being annoyed by > it ;-)? I don't think the problem is iconification, but it's the accumulation of frames: so a better solution might be to reuse a special frame dedicated to those temporary buffers. Stefan