From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: moving window handling into lisp Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:14:18 +0200 Message-ID: References: <4A86AD92.7030308@gmx.at> <87vdkpfbeg.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <4A86DE30.8060902@gmx.at> <4A86F24D.4090103@gmx.at> <4A87DE88.6050209@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1250421280 880 80.91.229.12 (16 Aug 2009 11:14:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:14:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 16 13:14:33 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 1Mcdh2-0007UR-B0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:14:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37248 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mcdh1-0000uI-Hf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:14:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mcdgv-0000te-6W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:14:25 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mcdgp-0000tR-Hq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:14:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33017 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mcdgp-0000tO-Dg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:14:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-yw0-f190.google.com ([209.85.211.190]:58497) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mcdgp-0007Qf-4r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:14:19 -0400 Original-Received: by ywh28 with SMTP id 28so3452210ywh.27 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 04:14:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zEUN61C+g5Q7fzAxG7VGRitbYu8T5JsQ4P9A5E5CfY8=; b=yCVpXzPVT2GQfVJiMYC8uh0cI4Y4CjZEbnyzdQCmgebAWTKxj1Vbmml749z52bHHuz bEYFIWw3ARyxQxXdiECSzWY9XxE883SbYgyfWVWUZuCxuUOFRRGz/ReWF6zJkvb2G9vg ytHmtvmy1VZHZZQVvTYxG/EmPuCkSRDjmw+Gw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=E+7B2iccxk1KmLAVJcBavEt+8kLw72Iv9Y2wD2gy5udWe/UngNVagwiCWH197A2WMZ V1CIwJ4vIzXG9I82T6Y9bj8kgQo9NwJHGLVipUWBSHPdT1LD6EKFCTY+OdB6lap8S613 GgjBHsPIWZtNLRJ6YAp/Bzi5PS2wMl74cVPZ0= Original-Received: by 10.101.49.11 with SMTP id b11mr2735710ank.121.1250421258201; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 04:14:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A87DE88.6050209@gmx.at> X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:114298 Archived-At: On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:25 PM, martin rudalics wrote: >> However in that case I would still suggest showing one window >> temporary and explain and give alternatives there. I can't see that it >> is worse than just deleting the windows. Just deleting the windows >> might look like a bug - or maybe just not be noticed, be confusing. > > It hardly was a problem recently. =C2=A0What's more important IMHO is tha= t > when we shrink a frame and re-enlarge it afterwards we should get the > previous sizes. =C2=A0That's, however, more difficult to do. What is problematic with that if we save pointers to the old structure as I suggested? (I am not saying there aren't any problem, I just don't know what kind of problem you see.)