Ehum, as always..., here is a better, somewhat more working version... ;-)



On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Lennart
Borgman<lennart.borgman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is some elisp code that shows the "collecting" part. Am I missing
> something essential there?
>
> There are not so many comments at the moment, but I think you can guess... ;-)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:05 PM, martin rudalics<rudalics@gmx.at> wrote:
>>> I think the problems in the currently used logic may show up like
>>> that, yes. But I am sure you know much more about that.
>>
>> I suppose it can't loop currently.  Stefan's window balancing code can
>> loop so he put an upper bound on how often that loop can get executed.
>>
>>> I do not think that fixed size windows is any problem in the algorithm
>>> I gave. You just use that size both when walking up and collecting
>>> (minimal) sizes and when walking down to compute sizes to apply.
>>
>> Maybe.  I still don't know whether you have an algorithm in the first
>> place.  The recipe you gave lacks two details: (1) How to "collect" the
>> sizes, and (2) how to "apply" them as they could be.
>>
>>> There is so to say no way to get too small windows when computing
>>> sizes to apply, but you can of course find that there is not enough
>>> space if the "sum" of the minimum sizes is too large. But you will
>>> easily see that since on each level when you are going down you know
>>> how much space each sublevel as a mininum needs.
>>
>> With fixed-size windows you have a minimum and a maximum.  Surprisingly,
>> fixed-size windows are used in practice as a recent bug report confirms.
>>
>> martin
>>
>