From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: MY window tree! Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:09:35 +0100 Message-ID: <45AB8B1F.7010408@gmail.com> References: <45A8B034.8020301@gmx.at> <45A9F965.4080007@gmail.com> <45AA1382.2030506@gmx.at> <45AA17CE.9050009@gmail.com> <45AA6B59.30203@gmx.at> <45AAA21C.6090505@gmail.com> <45AAB98F.8060404@gmail.com> <45AB2CDB.1040207@gmx.at> <45AB7C99.6050002@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1168880886 8802 80.91.229.12 (15 Jan 2007 17:08:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:08:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: martin rudalics , help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, michael@cadilhac.name Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 15 18:08:03 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H6VIi-0001if-8T for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:07:16 +0100 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6VIg-0008SQ-A5 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:07:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6SZp-0001mO-7d for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:12:45 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H6SZU-0001kY-I4 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:12:24 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H6SZS-0001jr-HJ for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:12:22 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6SZS-0001jc-4D for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:12:22 -0500 Original-Received: from [80.76.149.213] (helo=ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1H6SWj-0003Zp-51 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:09:33 -0500 Original-Received: from c83-254-145-24.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.145.24]:60653 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H6SWg-0005Oy-8K; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:09:30 +0100 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) Original-To: Juanma Barranquero In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0703-1, 2007-01-15), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1H6SWg-0005Oy-8K. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1H6SWg-0005Oy-8K 35e6e5437e1d0d171674ec61945ced96 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:40296 Archived-At: Juanma Barranquero wrote: >> From your package: > > ;; Juanma Barranquero has pointed out there is a serious limitation in > ;; this way of doing it when overlays with 'window properties are > ;; used. The problem is that any pointers to windows are made invalid > ;; since they are deleted. So in fact any code that relies on saved > ;; pointers to windows will have problem if the window is one of those > ;; that are involved here. > > I was talking of modes that maintain a list of *overlays*, not > windows, but this other point, though not mine, is also valid :) But overlays are bound to buffers AFAIK. I can not see there are any problems with buffers here. Or am I missing something? Is not the only binding from overlays to windows the 'window property that can be set for some overlays. > All in all, I think all this is complicated stuff for something that > would perhaps be easier at the C level, without the need to delete and > recreate windows. I am not sure if it is very easy at the C level, but it would be good to have primitives for handling cases like this there.