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 18:12:36 +0200 Message-ID: <83oabcr85n.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20160218195630.GA2697@acm.fritz.box> <837fi1u5qt.fsf@gnu.org> <20160219142522.GA3193@acm.fritz.box> <56C727E5.7060405@gmx.at> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1455898401 22359 80.91.229.3 (19 Feb 2016 16:13:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:13:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 19 17:13:16 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 1aWngC-0002Xs-DD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:13:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53447 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aWngB-0001Ku-Rz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:13:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44455) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aWnfq-0001Hp-0u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:12:54 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aWnfl-0003Nw-Fv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:12:53 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:33767) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aWnfl-0003Np-6C; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:12:49 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3945 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aWnfk-0004T7-5i; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:12:48 -0500 In-reply-to: <56C727E5.7060405@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:34:13 +0100) 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:200221 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:34:13 +0100 > From: martin rudalics > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > Yes, but that's not realistic, I think. Follow Mode windows _are_ of > > unequal width. > > We can easily make the text area of these windows the same width. > Simply add any remaining pixel to the divider. My suggestion would be to forcibly equalize the windows. Then, even if we cannot do that exactly (e.g., because the number of pixels is odd), the difference is a single pixel, and that _can_ be handled by adding the pixel to the divider. By contrast, a divider that is many pixels wider than normal will look odd if not buggy. I fail to see why users of Follow mode won't agree to having equal-width windows. After all, this mode is supposed to create an illusion of one long window, so its parts should have the same width, IMO. However, I don't use the mode, so perhaps I'm missing something.