Re: Windows' "split status"

[martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>]

 >>      If this variable is always non-`nil', a frame's window
 >>      tree is a binary tree so every window but the frame's root window
 >>      has exactly one sibling.
 >
 > As a native English speaker, I'm afraid that this reads like a
 > non-native-English-speaker's attempt to render
 >
 >> If this variable is always non-`nil', a frame's window tree is always
 >> a binary tree so every window but the frame's root window has exactly
 >> one sibling.

Because of the missing "always"?  Then your formulation is missing yet
another "always" immediately before "exactly".

 > which unfortunately has a quite different meaning.

Mixing temporal operators and quantification in prose is problematic.
But what precisely constitutes the "different meaning" here in your
opinion?

 > While your
 > formulation is grammatically correct, I don't think it's very meaningful
 > to talk about a variable's value "always" being something.

The term "always" has very contrived semantics but it's informally often
used to say something like: If this variable is non-nil when Emacs
starts and is non-nil whenever Emacs performs an action, then for any of
Emacs' frames, that frame's window tree is a binary tree when Emacs
starts and after any action performed by Emacs.  Or, if this variable is
always non-nil, then any frame's window tree is always a binary tree.

Obviously I'd prefer to say something more useful like "for all frames
invariantly holds that if this variable is non-nil when that frame is
created or a window on that frame is created or deleted, that frame's
window tree is a binary tree" but I don't like talking in terms of pre-
and post-conditions and don't know anyway how to provide the necessary
atomicity of Emacs' actions wrt to "this variable's value".

 > Perhaps framing this in terms of a guarantee is clearer?
 >
 >> If this variable's value remains non-`nil' throughout the lifetime of
 >> a frame, the frame's window tree is guaranteed to be a binary tree;
 >> every window nested below the root window will have exactly one
 >> sibling.

I wouldn't mind.  After all, this sentence was meant as an additional
hint only, without the slightest claim for formal correctness.

martin