turning off the fringe.

turning off the fringe.

[ali rahimi]

Hello. I just installed emacs21 after some goading from people who like to
use fancier things than i like to use. The problem with a lot of fancy
is that they cost a lot money.

I run two emacs frames side by side, taking up my entire screen. I paid
about $1200 for my monitor (one of the fancier things in my office). It's
1280 pixels wide. After a quick back-of-the envelope calculation, I think
that these new fancy fringes are taking up a total of 52 pixels, which is
costing me about $50 in screen real estate every time i run emacs.

Being excessively penurious, I have to ask: 

	How can I please turn off the fringes, but maybe turn them back
        on during gud mode?

Thank you,

 Ali.

Re: turning off the fringe.

[David Kastrup]

ali rahimi <ali@mit.edu> writes:

> Hello. I just installed emacs21 after some goading from people who
> like to use fancier things than i like to use. The problem with a
> lot of fancy is that they cost a lot money.
> 
> I run two emacs frames side by side, taking up my entire screen. I
> paid about $1200 for my monitor (one of the fancier things in my
> office). It's 1280 pixels wide. After a quick back-of-the envelope
> calculation, I think that these new fancy fringes are taking up a
> total of 52 pixels, which is costing me about $50 in screen real
> estate every time i run emacs.

You are doing something wrong if you need to buy a new monitor every
time you run Emacs.

> 	How can I please turn off the fringes, but maybe turn them
> 	back on during gud mode?

Customizable fringes are only available when you use a fancier Emacs
than Emacs-21.2.  The developer Emacs (which will be released at some
time as 21.4) has them.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: turning off the fringe.

[Stefan Monnier]

>>>>> "ali" == ali rahimi <ali@mit.edu> writes:
> I run two emacs frames side by side, taking up my entire screen. I paid
> about $1200 for my monitor (one of the fancier things in my office). It's
> 1280 pixels wide. After a quick back-of-the envelope calculation, I think
> that these new fancy fringes are taking up a total of 52 pixels, which is
> costing me about $50 in screen real estate every time i run emacs.

The old Emacs also had a fringe on the right hand side (although it
was less visible since it only held `\' or `$' at times), so the
new code only costs you an extra 26 pixels.


        Stefan

Re: turning off the fringe.

[David Combs]

In article <mailman.2358.1046148021.21513.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
ali rahimi  <ali@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>I run two emacs frames side by side, ...

Why two frames?  Why not just two (emacs) "windows" --
via C-x 3.

Then do M-x follow-mode, so that when you have the same
buffer in both (side-by-side) windows, the one on
the left will "wrap around" to the top of the one
on its right.

For fun, do *another* C-x 3.

----

Maybe this is just a vocabulary problem; emacs
has its own terminology for what you'd normally
call a window, likewise for a frame.

In emacs, which was written *before* GUIs
existed (except at maybe Xeroc Parc), emacs
earlier versions worked on terminals that could
run things like vi (which probably didn't exist
then either) -- I mean where the cursor could
be told to jump to position x,y, things like that.

C-x 2 would (and still does) split the screen
into an upper and lower piece -- and the name
used (coined?) for each of those was "window".

Then along came GUIs, and they used the term
window for, you know, a window.

Sometime in there, rms added to emacs the
ability to add 2nd, 3rd, ... "GUI-windows"
to the same emacs session, each of which
could be split C-x 2 or 3, shared buffer-data,
and so on.

Terminology was needed for use *within emacs*
for these 2nd, 3rd, things, and the name
"frame" was given to each one.

Like the guy who found out he'd been speaking
"prose" all his life, the emacs user had
been using, at least in a gui environment,
a "frame", but until the ability to have
more of one at a time (for a single emacs),
the user didn't know that terminology.

----

I'm probably all wrong -- but it's a try,
anyway.

David