Re: special buffer frames again

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

> I hate to say it, but this is a general problem with Emacs, IMO.  Emacs is
> not very frames friendly, especially when it comes to displaying buffers
> that it traditionally thinks of as "temporary".  My impression is that
> those who design and test Emacs generally do not test much using
> `pop-up-frames' = t (separate frames), and they tend to use functions such
> as `bury-buffer' to end use of a temporary window.  The result, when you
> use frames, is iconification of frames and other uglinesses, when all you
> want is for the frame to be deleted.

Come on, Drew, you *do* know better.  At least one of the core maintainers
(i.e. yours truly) uses such a one-frame-per-buffer setup, so there is some
testing going on.  And more to the point, he specifically wants frames to be
iconified rather than deleted, so this issue of deletion/iconification is
100% orthogonal.

But yes, most other users of Emacs use few frames.  And I tend to believe
that they're more efficient for it, because unless you use a window-manager
that can be controlled efficiently from the keyboard (which basically
implies a tiled window-manager), managing frames is inefficient.

Me?  I don't even know how to touch type, so efficiency is clearly not
a concern ;-)


        Stefan