From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Steven Degutis Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: `auto-dim-other-windows` -- scrutiny invited Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:55:11 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87ehersl1c.fsf@wanadoo.es> <877gkjh6pk.fsf@web.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec544ece0e4355304d97b115a X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1365022530 21779 80.91.229.3 (3 Apr 2013 20:55:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:55:30 +0000 (UTC) To: "help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org" , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D3scar_Fuentes?= Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 03 22:55:58 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1UNUiq-0007Wp-UQ for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:55:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36919 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UNUiR-00031u-WC for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:55:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45527) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UNUiE-00031o-9n for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:55:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UNUi8-0005hZ-GW for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:55:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com ([209.85.160.54]:49052) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UNUi8-0005hR-38 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:55:12 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id xa7so1050920pbc.27 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:55:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=9UjhnpUqJT5gLtyOyYDhNLp6/7YEHaCF7V5P5s96qOo=; b=pepDH0GVEif6ggB5PPqyGPLU1X0j4A1l7MGqkgYkp9DGcXALGRl2pPbhy2UoAjrdVn 1h6Avb7tgzeNIMoItiuOASJCb34Vl2YIr9t4Ucf0aT/mQk2XbgEcznT456NuMaTCRy9R xccihJhj+QaIGLRjdyfxAAgbpZKjwDYi/7Q44wLoyjiOBgFjbaX2C91dgompsdC5lB5r 8WFRU9tMGk3y5f16fr7b6FtyrBzz1pyW7yGTZFZ0E1row8+IKnKIF5PBDaWNG7t+rFsS ntdJH2cmpBAOSWj4Q9TePjr0L/PhCGyGcEXM8bVFie1oLru/AWS8BuL3BB8W0acXNTJf u9Xg== X-Received: by 10.68.59.8 with SMTP id v8mr1734361pbq.218.1365022511213; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:55:11 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.70.6.100 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 13:55:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <877gkjh6pk.fsf@web.de> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.160.54 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:89964 Archived-At: --bcaec544ece0e4355304d97b115a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Never mind, this technique seems much too hard to get right while being reasonably efficient. -Steven On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Michael Heerdegen wrote: > Steven Degutis writes: > > > Hmm, it seems that using overlays could allow the dimming to be > > per-window instead of per-buffer. > > > > But overlays have a few quirks. > > Yes. BTW, efficiency is not among them in our case. If you had > hundreds or thousands of overlays in a buffer (e.g. one in every single > line in a very large buffer), it is another thing. > > > First, they're still per-buffer. You can copy them around different > > buffers, but each buffer has to have its own. So if we were going to > > use them to dim other windows, every buffer would have to always have > > an extra overlay in it. > > > > Second, while they do have a 'window' property that allows them to be > > visible only when the buffer is in a given window, this is the > > inverse of what we want. We would want them to be visible only when > > the buffer is *not* in (selected-window). > > Right. It would complicate the code, no doubt. > > > There's a few ways these could be worked around. > > > > We could add overlays to every buffer, and whenever you change > > windows, remove the overlay from the current buffer and add it back > > to the previous buffer. But this is identical to what > > `auto-dim-other-buffers` already does now, only harder to write. When > > you remove it from the current buffer, you could have the same buffer > > open in multiple windows, and in all of them it's gone. > > That's not exactly what I had in mind. > > For every not-selected window w_n, the displayed buffer b_n would get an > overlay with the `window' overlay property being w_n. This implies that > buffers can get more than one overlay (if visible in multiple windows). > In the selected window, those overlays are not visible, because it is > different from all windows specified in any `window' properties. > > So, this approach would work, but OTOH, some users also may like the > current behavior. > > > Or, we could have it reversed. We could only have an overlay on the > > current buffer at any given time, and give it the window of > > (selected-window), and keep updating these any time you change > > buffers or windows. This would successfully "differentiate" the > > current window from every other window and allow you to style it > > differently. But it has the problem of being the exact inverse of the > > original goal, which is to dim other windows. It would be more like > > `auto-prominentize-current-window`. > > > > The problem would then be that you now need to make the current > > buffer look different than the default face. But by definition, the > > default face is *exactly* what you want to be editing in. > > > > So one hacky way to solve this is to somehow "switch out" the default > > face with the one you want to be considered "dimmed", and give the > > current-window-overlay the face that was originally your "default > > face". > > > > This seems like it *could* work, but it's terrifying. Absolutely > > terrifying. > > Right. > > Apropos echo area: Note that the minibuffer-window is also a visible > window - the window where the echo area or the minibuffer, respectively, > is displayed. > > > HTH, > > Michael. > > --bcaec544ece0e4355304d97b115a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Never mind, this technique seems much too hard to get righ= t while being reasonably efficient.

-Steven


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdeg= en@web.de> wrote:
Steven Degutis <sbdegutis@gmail.com> writes:

> Hmm, it seems that using overlays could allow the dimming to be
> per-window instead of per-buffer.
>
> But overlays have a few quirks.

Yes. =A0BTW, efficiency is not among them in our case. =A0If you had<= br> hundreds or thousands of overlays in a buffer (e.g. one in every single
line in a very large buffer), it is another thing.

> First, they're still per-buffer. You can copy them around differen= t
> buffers, but each buffer has to have its own. So if we were going to > use them to dim other windows, every buffer would have to always have<= br> > an extra overlay in it.
>
> Second, while they do have a 'window' property that allows the= m to be
> visible only when the buffer is in a given window, this is the
> inverse of what we want. We would want them to be visible only when > the buffer is *not* in (selected-window).

Right. =A0It would complicate the code, no doubt.

> There's a few ways these could be worked around.
>
> We could add overlays to every buffer, and whenever you change
> windows, remove the overlay from the current buffer and add it back > to the previous buffer. But this is identical to what
> `auto-dim-other-buffers` already does now, only harder to write. When<= br> > you remove it from the current buffer, you could have the same buffer<= br> > open in multiple windows, and in all of them it's gone.

That's not exactly what I had in mind.

For every not-selected window w_n, the displayed buffer b_n would get an overlay with the `window' overlay property being w_n. =A0This implies t= hat
buffers can get more than one overlay (if visible in multiple windows).
In the selected window, those overlays are not visible, because it is
different from all windows specified in any `window' properties.

So, this approach would work, but OTOH, some users also may like the
current behavior.

> Or, we could have it reversed. We could only have an overlay on the > current buffer at any given time, and give it the window of
> (selected-window), and keep updating these any time you change
> buffers or windows. This would successfully "differentiate" = the
> current window from every other window and allow you to style it
> differently. But it has the problem of being the exact inverse of the<= br> > original goal, which is to dim other windows. It would be more like > `auto-prominentize-current-window`.
>
> The problem would then be that you now need to make the current
> buffer look different than the default face. But by definition, the > default face is *exactly* what you want to be editing in.
>
> So one hacky way to solve this is to somehow "switch out" th= e default
> face with the one you want to be considered "dimmed", and gi= ve the
> current-window-overlay the face that was originally your "default=
> face".
>
> This seems like it *could* work, but it's terrifying. Absolutely > terrifying.

Right.

Apropos echo area: Note that the minibuffer-window is also a visible
window - the window where the echo area or the minibuffer, respectively, is displayed.


HTH,

Michael.


--bcaec544ece0e4355304d97b115a--