From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thomas Lord Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Infrastructural complexity. Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:31:30 -0700 Message-ID: <1248460290.6223.53.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> References: <20090712180623.GA1009@muc.de> <87ocrjtafd.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <1247871746.6287.157.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <1247966060.7410.63.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <4A62F7AD.4000609@gmx.at> <87eiscn223.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <4A643993.5080302@gmx.at> <87ljmjl9ow.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <4A648E1D.1000007@gmx.at> <877hy3l3kj.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <4A64BF58.4030001@gmx.at> <871vobkny7.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <4A658CD2.8020504@gmx.at> <1248195599.7551.26.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <4A65FA0E.6020800@gmx.at> <1248200131.7551.75.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <4A66E607.9030505@gmx.at> <1248280114.7109.33.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <4A67593D.6020908@gmx.at> <1248289454.7109.47.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <4A682C53.2080307@gmx.at> <1248375083.15583.9.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <4A6970B8.7000006@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1248461320 16511 80.91.229.12 (24 Jul 2009 18:48:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:48:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, cyd@stupidchicken.com, lennart.borgman@gmail.com, joakim@verona.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org, juri@jurta.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, acm@muc.de, drew.adams@oracle.com, Miles Bader To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 24 20:48:31 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MUPok-0004Sm-SH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:48:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37555 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MUPok-0002yW-3L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:48:30 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MUPYV-0005j0-0Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:31:43 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MUPYO-0005ea-2f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:31:40 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55217 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MUPYN-0005e9-Mf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:31:35 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp191.iad.emailsrvr.com ([207.97.245.191]:49161) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MUPYL-0001In-IS; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:31:33 -0400 Original-Received: from relay9.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay9.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id BFA351E30A7; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:31:32 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by relay9.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: lord-AT-emf.net) with ESMTPSA id F3D241E2E15; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:31:30 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <4A6970B8.7000006@gmx.at> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:113109 Archived-At: On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 10:28 +0200, martin rudalics wrote: > The basic semantics of `window-list', namely that of returning all life > windows must be unchanged. I agree. That is part of why I'd like to see separate frames rather than window-groups. > I suppose nobody wants to restrict the value > returned by `buffer-list' to the buffers controlled by a specific > application only. I agree with that as well but with a caveat. While I dislike "window groups" I think Emacs would benefit from the introduction of "buffer groups" and from a frame property that says which buffer group is preferred there. For example, one "buffer group" might be `control-panels'. Commands that switch buffers would be biased to, by default, switch only to buffers in the buffer group of the current frame. This is a generalization of the existing notion of "internal" buffers. > > Emacs already has a way to segregate groups of > > windows in that way: frames. That's what > > gives rise to the idea that control panels are > > mostly just a new way to render certain frames. > Frames still don't give you any means to control where `display-buffer' > is going to display a buffer. I don't see any problem with adding special rules to `display-buffer' so that it treats framelets (frames with a non-nil parent slot) specially. Do you? -t