From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Infrastructural complexity. Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:08:22 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20090712180623.GA1009@muc.de> <4A65FA0E.6020800@gmx.at> <1248200131.7551.75.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <4A66E607.9030505@gmx.at> <1248280114.7109.33.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <4A67593D.6020908@gmx.at> <1248289454.7109.47.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <4A682C53.2080307@gmx.at> <1248375083.15583.9.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1248397730 5476 80.91.229.12 (24 Jul 2009 01:08:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:08:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Thomas Lord , rms@gnu.org, cyd@stupidchicken.com, Lennart Borgman , emacs-devel@gnu.org, juri@jurta.org, martin rudalics , acm@muc.de, drew.adams@oracle.com, Miles Bader To: joakim@verona.se Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 24 03:08:42 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 1MU9H4-0002a0-7n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 03:08:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58937 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MU9H3-0007yC-GO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:08:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MU9Gz-0007xx-Fk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:08:33 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MU9Gt-0007xW-VZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:08:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58144 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MU9Gt-0007xT-Qo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:08:27 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.pppoe.ca ([206.248.154.182]:12345 helo=ironport2-out.teksavvy.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MU9Gp-0006wW-NH; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:08:23 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApIFANelaEpFpZx3/2dsb2JhbACBUc8thA0Fhws X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,259,1246852800"; d="scan'208";a="42084198" Original-Received: from 69-165-156-119.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.165.156.119]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2009 21:08:22 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 2C3A184A3; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:08:22 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (joakim@verona.se's message of "Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:35:46 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.94 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:113071 Archived-At: > There are 2 proposals for window groups, mine and Martins(which is > probably more advanced than mine). I initialy just wanted to be able > to "pin" windows, so they werent affected by c-x 1 and stuff like > that. I really just wanted a small window to hold the information the > mode-line normaly is misused to hold. So I wanted something lighter > than a frame. Oh wait, thats a framelet :) I still believe also that tab-bars (and tool-bar as well) could/should be implement(ed|able) in Elisp as "normal windows". Such windows obviously need a special treatment and are bound/related to some other window (or window-tree). You could think of them as being in a top-framelet, but I also would like to be able to have tab-bars and tool-bars attached to individual windows rather than to frames, so it would appear to be necessary to handle such special windows appearing not just on the border of a frame. For this reason, I think that Thomas's proposal is too limited. Stefan