From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Infrastructural complexity. Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:11:37 -0400 Message-ID: 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> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1247937202 21676 80.91.229.12 (18 Jul 2009 17:13:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:13:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lord@emf.net, cyd@stupidchicken.com, lennart.borgman@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, juri@jurta.org, rudalics@gmx.at, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, acm@muc.de, drew.adams@oracle.com To: joakim@verona.se Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 18 19:13:14 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 1MSDTF-0004iE-Q9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:13:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43891 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MSDTE-0001Qd-Vc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:13:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MSDRo-00005z-Vv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:11:45 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MSDRk-0008Vi-AO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:11:44 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58610 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MSDRk-0008Vc-3e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:11:40 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:39703) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MSDRj-0005uD-Kb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:11:39 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1MSDRh-00008C-Ql; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:11:37 -0400 In-reply-to: (joakim@verona.se) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:112691 Archived-At: A "windowgroup" is similar to an Emacs frame, inside another emacs frame. I like this better than using several Emacs frames. It might be a subtle question. To think about it, I suggest looking at by asking: What is the difference between a windowgroup and a framelet? Or what are the various differences? With a list of these differences, it might be possible to see a number of different design options and what is better or worse about them.