From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [RfC] Saving narrowing information within window configuration Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:44:57 +0200 Message-ID: <86vebjioxi.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <874pj3em6g.fsf@freebits.de> <864pj3k7ua.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <87zm0vd40s.fsf@freebits.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1187009112 32101 80.91.229.12 (13 Aug 2007 12:45:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:45:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Tobias C. Rittweiler" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 13 14:45:06 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IKZI9-0000wn-86 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:45:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IKZI8-0008Ka-WF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:45:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IKZI6-0008KF-5L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:45:02 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IKZI4-0008K0-4M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:45:01 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IKZI3-0008Jx-UN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:44:59 -0400 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IKZI3-0006JS-9Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:44:59 -0400 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (dslnet.212-29-44.ip210.dokom.de [212.29.44.210] (may be forged)) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA29952 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:44:53 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 19713 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2007 12:44:58 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 13 Aug 2007 12:44:58 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 1E9C08F225; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:44:58 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87zm0vd40s.fsf@freebits.de> (Tobias C. Rittweiler's message of "Mon\, 13 Aug 2007 14\:15\:31 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:76454 Archived-At: "Tobias C. Rittweiler" writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >> "Tobias C. Rittweiler" writes: >> >> > As far as I can see (Emacs v22.0.91.1), narrowed regions are not >> > restored by saved window configurations. I propose to change that. >> > >> > Comments? >> >> Don't like it. This is not about what parts of a buffer are >> displayed, but which parts are accessible. > > I think window configurations are mostly used for saving and > restoring the state as seen by the user, aren't they? So restoring > narrowing just seems to be the right thing. Narrowing is not a part of the window configuration. Strictly speaking, I already find that restoring point and mark is a mistake here: window-point is the only thing that should be restored in each window (if there is a currently active window, this will incidentally also restore point, but that can't be avoided). > (If restoring narrowing by default is a change that is too invasive, > I'd have nothing against making it optionally.) It is simply a mistake to do so. Narrowing is not a feature of the display, but of buffer accessibility. You would not think of doing "undo" until the state of the window configuration is reached, even though buffer changes affected the state as seen by the user, would you? In my opinion, narrowing is of a similar degree. -- David Kastrup