From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: The future of Follow Mode - a proposal. Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 22:27:28 +0200 Message-ID: <83bn7cqwcv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20160218195630.GA2697@acm.fritz.box> <20160219162159.GB3193@acm.fritz.box> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1455913673 32120 80.91.229.3 (19 Feb 2016 20:27:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:27:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: John Yates Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 19 21:27:52 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aWreZ-0000rC-LG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 21:27:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55171 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aWreY-0002hg-W7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:27:51 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37653) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aWreV-0002hU-Px for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:27:48 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aWreS-000889-LI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:27:47 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:39641) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aWreS-000885-HW; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:27:44 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4205 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aWreR-0005lg-Rw; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:27:44 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from John Yates on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:25:10 -0500) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:200243 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:25:10 -0500 > From: John Yates > Cc: Emacs developers > > This may seem heretical but I would move the mini-buffer to the topof > the frame. I can already approximate such a layout using a separate > mini-buffer frame and the _NET_WM_STRUT_PARTIAL property. > > Ideally there would be a frame parameter that would allow me to specify > that the mini-buffer should be positioned at the top of the frame. > > My motivation here is that I have a single, large, very high resolution > screen. I maintain a set of tall, horizontally arrayed windows. I advise > split-window and delete-window to keep all windows balanced. Since > these windows are so tall very often they are only partially filled. The > net effect is that interesting content is concentrated at the top of my > screen. That being the case needing to look to the bottom of the > screen to inspect the mode-line and/or mini-buffer only slows me down. > I would be much happier if I could have: > * the mini-buffer at the top of its frame > * the mode-line at the top of its window It might be much easier to make text display at the bottom of a window. Have you considered that possibility?