Re: turning off the fringe.

[dkcombs@panix.com (David Combs)]

In article <mailman.2358.1046148021.21513.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
ali rahimi  <ali@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>I run two emacs frames side by side, ...

Why two frames?  Why not just two (emacs) "windows" --
via C-x 3.

Then do M-x follow-mode, so that when you have the same
buffer in both (side-by-side) windows, the one on
the left will "wrap around" to the top of the one
on its right.

For fun, do *another* C-x 3.

----

Maybe this is just a vocabulary problem; emacs
has its own terminology for what you'd normally
call a window, likewise for a frame.

In emacs, which was written *before* GUIs
existed (except at maybe Xeroc Parc), emacs
earlier versions worked on terminals that could
run things like vi (which probably didn't exist
then either) -- I mean where the cursor could
be told to jump to position x,y, things like that.

C-x 2 would (and still does) split the screen
into an upper and lower piece -- and the name
used (coined?) for each of those was "window".

Then along came GUIs, and they used the term
window for, you know, a window.

Sometime in there, rms added to emacs the
ability to add 2nd, 3rd, ... "GUI-windows"
to the same emacs session, each of which
could be split C-x 2 or 3, shared buffer-data,
and so on.

Terminology was needed for use *within emacs*
for these 2nd, 3rd, things, and the name
"frame" was given to each one.

Like the guy who found out he'd been speaking
"prose" all his life, the emacs user had
been using, at least in a gui environment,
a "frame", but until the ability to have
more of one at a time (for a single emacs),
the user didn't know that terminology.

----

I'm probably all wrong -- but it's a try,
anyway.

David