Re: Infrastructural complexity.

[martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>]

 > Once you start letting the WM have any control all bets are off --
 > remember, it's _not_ just initial placement, but movement, sizing
 > [think: tiling WM!], additional WM-added frames, dealing with the many,
 > many, differences between WMs on different platforms, etc.

The user is supposed to control the WM and tiling WMs should manage
multiple Emacs frames better than Emacs itself is able to tile a frame
into multiple windows.  After all that's what tiling WMs are supposed to
do well.

 > This approach seems a complete non-starter to me, unless we have control
 > over the WM as well (and we don't)...

... hopefully we don't since otherwise we could never blame the WM for
not being able to handle our frames ;-)

Anway, converting windows to frames in order to tear them off and back
to windows when docking them back seems hardly feasible to me.  Not to
think of multiple (un-)wrapping menu- or toolbars somewhere in the
middle of a frame just because the user decided to resize that frame.

So once we decided that the multi-frames approach is a non-starter we
should decide that tear-off windows and windows with menu- or toolbars
are non-starters too.  Can we agree on that?

martin