From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9875: 24.0.90; Confusing description of the "window tree" in ELisp manual Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:56:16 +0200 Message-ID: <4EA92AC0.1040803@gmx.at> References: <83zkgnbo50.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1319709446 17697 80.91.229.12 (27 Oct 2011 09:57:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:57:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 9875@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 27 11:57:20 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJMi8-0001EL-7Y for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:57:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52663 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJMi7-0007Eb-SH for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:57:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59533) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJMi4-0007EK-3w for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:57:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJMi3-0003bl-1s for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:57:16 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:43944) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJMi2-0003bh-VE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:57:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJMjm-0002LV-C1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:59:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:59:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9875 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 9875-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9875.13197094958954 (code B ref 9875); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:59:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9875) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Oct 2011 09:58:15 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJMj0-0002KN-7k for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:58:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJMix-0002KA-Ar for 9875@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:58:12 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2011 09:56:17 -0000 Original-Received: from 62-47-54-146.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.54.146]) [62.47.54.146] by mail.gmx.net (mp041) with SMTP; 27 Oct 2011 11:56:17 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19CYEw1VB5C4II9RzXn8B5lgWKrv0t16B3IoAfTvq xZXb8dKgYyF2JI User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:59:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:53198 Archived-At: > That's true, but this fact is an implementation detail; we could > easily have the nodes be different Lisp objects. Certainly not. If you look into the window resizing code you will see that it treats internal and leaf windows alike. Changing the underlying representation would have meant to double the work done there. > So I think speaking about "nodes" instead will avoid confusion, > because otherwise whenever we talk about a "window", the reader will > always be in doubt whether this applies only to the "real", i.e. leaf > windows, or to the "internal" ones as well. This is usually said in the second sentence of the doc-string. For `split-window' it reads "WINDOW can be any window and defaults to the selected one." And for `set-window-buffer' we have "WINDOW has to be a live window and defaults to the selected one." Let's not spoil this very simple recipe. martin