From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: RE: bind a hotkey to toggle variable Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:02:47 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4314c1f70907110928j2b12bc95v51e4c785a9fee6f2@mail.gmail.com><428DAEDA942B4A9B8ABBD00EF40F54DB@us.oracle.com><4314c1f70907121936r6a74003aya2bb42b1bfb56d35@mail.gmail.com><4314c1f70907122012j638e717cw984a0defd893455f@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1247497700 25117 80.91.229.12 (13 Jul 2009 15:08:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:08:20 +0000 (UTC) To: "'Miles Bader'" , Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 13 17:08:13 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MQN8W-0004GO-Ce for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:08:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34182 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MQN8V-0005lt-Qs for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:08:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MQN3M-0003kG-IY for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:02:52 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MQN3H-0003h3-BK for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:02:51 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59324 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MQN3G-0003gk-QB for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:02:46 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet11.oracle.com ([148.87.113.123]:52390 helo=rgminet11.oracle.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MQN3D-0003pd-0c; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:02:43 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rgminet11.oracle.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.1) with ESMTP id n6DF4CL5000517 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:04:13 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt003.oracle.com (abhmt003.oracle.com [141.146.116.12]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.1) with ESMTP id n6DF4XB0012719; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:04:33 GMT Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.88.28) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:02:37 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcoDpuevXNULq8WhRoeCP9DnAkz2EgAHe0UQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Source-IP: abhmt003.oracle.com [141.146.116.12] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A010202.4A5B4C8E.0109:SCFSTAT5015188,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:66033 Archived-At: > > Frankly, I'm always surprised that, 20-30 years after the > > introduction of graphic displays and window managers, most > > people still use Emacs windows, not frames, for most buffers. > > Doesn't seem particular surprising -- Emacs windows are generally much > easier to manipulate and behave better than frames controlled by the > system's window manager, especially for short-lived windows > (and this is despite many well-known shortcomings in Emacs window > manipulation, e.g., those which ECB tries to hack around). Chicken and egg. If you make the easiest way to get in and out of a car the back window, then, sure, most users will get in and out using the back window. So out of the box, yes, you're right; vanilla Emacs doesn't provide the same degree of user control for frames as it provides for windows. That's part of what I meant by Emacs dev being window-oriented. So users who want that must, on their own, provide code and bind keys to manipulate frames easily (move/resize in various ways, promote/demote, select, delete, whatever). Otherwise, with such additions, no, there is no necessary advantage, IMO. A short-lived frame is no more difficult to use than a short-lived window (unless your window manager is slow). On the contrary; frames can provide more options/flexibility for UI. A window either exists or it doesn't. A window can exist and not be displayed, but users generally do not or cannot take much advantage of that. Frames, on the other hand, can exist or not; they can be visible or invisible or iconified (or thumbified, with thumb-frm.el). > If you look at many other modern apps, they do exactly the same thing, No, please, stop with the "modern" stuff. Apps with windows inside windows have been around since the dark ages. Some apps fit well with that approach; others fit less well with it. That's all. It has nothing to do with "modern". We're not selling soap here. > though they may not use the term "window" for their internal windows > (maybe they call them "panels" or "widgets' or whatever) and may not > allow as much user manipulation as Emacs does. Still, the division in > to large relatively static system-controlled windows (emacs > frames) and small more dynamic app-controlled windows within them > seems like a pretty well established practice. Sure it is. But no more well-established than not putting everything in the same window-mgr window. The point is that in Emacs you can have it all, and use whatever you like most for a particular context. Nothing prevents you from using multiple windows in a frame, even if you have non-nil `pop-up-frames'. Nothing prevents you from using various features together: tabs, multiple windows, multiple frames. But the other side of the point is that most users don't - most just use the default behavior, which privileges windows considerably. Tabs in Emacs are still a poor cousin, and frames are not far behind that status. And that systemic privileging of windows in Emacs has nothing to do with fit for a particular app or being "modern". Those arguments are beside the point, even if we were to accord them. The reason that Emacs privileges windows is, well, simply that Emacs privileges windows. And the reason that Emacs users privilege windows is, well, that Emacs makes windows the easiest way to go. And yes, it does still surprise me a bit, after all this time. Note: Frames and tabs are things that Emacs already has - the basis is (has been, for a long time) there for making them useful. These are not like other things in the wide world that are still weak or nonexistent in Emacs - "modern" rendering, graphics, widgetry, and such. Anyway, this is not the best place for such a discussion. That's all I have to say about it here. We can discuss it more in emacs-devel, if you like.