From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Infrastructural complexity. Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:49:59 -0400 Message-ID: <8763dqoons.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <20090712180623.GA1009@muc.de> <1247784574.6302.83.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <1247787842.6302.90.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <1247793496.6302.112.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <1247797261.6302.137.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <1247798678.6302.156.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <87ocrjtafd.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <1247871746.6287.157.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1247874632 17022 80.91.229.12 (17 Jul 2009 23:50:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 23:50:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Lennart Borgman , joakim@verona.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Juri Linkov , Martin Rudalics , Stefan Monnier , Alan Mackenzie , Drew Adams To: Thomas Lord Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 18 01:50:24 2009 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 1MRxC3-0003oj-Nu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:50:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43285 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MRxC2-0002Fc-Sc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:50:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MRxBx-0002FX-Oc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:50:17 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MRxBs-0002Ed-8t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:50:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46752 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MRxBs-0002EH-1u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:50:12 -0400 Original-Received: from pantheon-po38.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.97]:58219) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MRxBr-000242-Lm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:50:11 -0400 Original-Received: from furry (dhcp128036014244.central.yale.edu [128.36.14.244]) (authenticated bits=0) by pantheon-po38.its.yale.edu (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n6HNnxZq009561 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:49:59 -0400 Original-Received: by furry (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 99739C09B; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:49:59 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <1247871746.6287.157.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> (Thomas Lord's message of "Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:02:26 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.96 (gnu/linux) X-YaleITSMailFilter: Version 1.2c (attachment(s) not renamed) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/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:112649 Archived-At: > To me, Emacs frames are an existing abstraction that is already very > close to how each individual panel, tearoff, and pop-up works... One > example is if you look at Eclipse screen shots and the panel down the > left side - sometimes it is split vertically; sometimes the user gets > to add additional vertical splits. That panel is, to my mind, a frame > -- just with this slight "subordination" addition and perhaps a > restriction about which buffers can be displayed there. The proofs of concept written by Joakim and Martin already handle this behavior. They don't require much of a change to the usual window semantics, either; the only new rule is that window operations only effect the windows within the current window group (e.g., C-x 1 would not delete the windows in other groups). The only thing new that the "framelets" idea brings to the table is the possibility of a separate set of tool-bars. But I don't think it's a big advantage considering (i) the extra engineering that would be required to get these extra toolbars to work, and (ii) the fact that Emacs is mostly keyboard-driven anyway.