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: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 19:29:49 +0200 Message-ID: <83d1rkg0ky.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20160218195630.GA2697@acm.fritz.box> <837fi1u5qt.fsf@gnu.org> <20160219142522.GA3193@acm.fritz.box> <83povsr8cc.fsf@gnu.org> <20160219181834.GC3193@acm.fritz.box> <83io1kr12k.fsf@gnu.org> <20160220124415.GA1758@acm.fritz.box> <83wppzo7lf.fsf@gnu.org> <20160223231156.GA26899@acm.fritz.box> <83a8mqhvym.fsf@gnu.org> <837fhthq5z.fsf@gnu.org> <834mcxhnaq.fsf@gnu.org> <83lh68g3fh.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1456421430 518 80.91.229.3 (25 Feb 2016 17:30:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:30:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 25 18:30:24 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 1aYzk7-0006u4-Q7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 18:30:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44874 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aYzk7-0005Sg-A9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:30:23 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52401) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aYzjd-0004jf-CM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:29:54 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aYzja-0006mu-0H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:29:53 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:42640) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aYzjZ-0006mq-UC; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:29:49 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1031 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aYzjZ-0000dM-8g; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:29:49 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:46:58 -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:200668 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:46:58 -0500 > > > Actually, vertical-motion completely breaks in that case. I don't > > even see a way that will allow to solve that situation in principle, > > except in some very specific and restricted use cases. > > Exactly. E.g. the behavior of vertical-motion could be "made to work" in > the case where the motion is within the existing glyph matrices of the > relevant windows, tho even in that case there could be several possible > desirable behaviors depending on the intention behind the use of > vertical-motion. Basically, it can be made to work when the text around the boundary uses the same font. > > Which is why I strongly suggest to change Follow Mode so that it > > forces all of its windows be of the same width. > > And in that case my Elisp hook approach should be usable (assuming it's > implementable ;-). Could very well be, I didn't think seriously about such a situation because Alan opposes to solve things like that. > > With the current pixelwise control of window dimensions, this is easy. > > Not sure about "easy" but yes. I meant making the windows of equal width is easy. > > However, Alan disagrees, and insists on supporting windows of unequal > > width. > > I think it might makes sense to allow the user to disable the "make all > follow-mode windows same-width" and just live with the corresponding > quirks, but I suspect that the amount of work needed to make follow-mode > work "100% correctly" for the mixed-width case is really large (it will > involve defining new primitives to replace vertical-motion, then > changing all users accordingly). What's the expected use-case that > would justify such an effort? I hope Alan has a good answer to that question.