Re: moving window handling into lisp

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>]

martin rudalics writes:

 >  > A (radical) alternative is to shrink the Emacs windows as much
 >  > as possible, then ignore further shrinkage.[1]
 > 
 > Ignoring `window-min-height' and `window-min-width' when shrinking
 > frames seems to do most of that job already.

Is that a joke?  If it isn't, I don't see how it applies.

 >  > The WM will shrink the shell widget's window, and the GUI server will
 >  > then clip the Emacs frame to fit.
 > 
 > This would usually clip off the echo area, I presume.

Yes, but the math and window repositioning to ensure that the echo
area is always visible is hardly rocket science.

 >  > user can get any work done anyway, and in that case the user will have
 >  > to tell the WM to resize Emacs to a usable size to get work done.  Why
 >  > not just leave Emacs's internal configuration as it is?
 > 
 > When I resize an Emacs frame because I temporarily want to work with
 > another application I usually don't care about the state of Emacs'
 > windows.

Then Emacs can act like the Linux OOM and kill windows randomly.  The
problem is for those of us who do care/those times when you care.

 > Leaving the frame configuration in some not very orderly state
 > doesn't strike me as very clean.

What "disorderly state"?  The *Emacs frame* is in the same orderly
state it was before, and as soon as you resize the shell to the
original size, you'll see it that way again -- with no other effort by
the Emacs user or the developers (assuming the same kind of trick is
available on Windows and Aqua -- making it work on non-Xt platforms
could be inordinately difficult, I admit).

 >  > Footnotes:
 >  > [1]  It might be a good idea to keep Emacs's "viewport" centered on
 >  > point in the selected Emacs window.  Then again, it might not.
 > 
 > We could just show the selected window of that frame and save the old
 > configuration somewhere.  The problem of undeleting windows raises its
 > ugly head again :-(

I am *so* not interested in talking about that. :-)