From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: special buffer frames again Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 13:02:22 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1178040848 19104 80.91.229.12 (1 May 2007 17:34:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:34:08 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 01 19:34:07 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HiwEn-0001xl-NV for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 May 2007 19:34:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HiwL7-0007vC-3z for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 May 2007 13:40:37 -0400 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newshub.stanford.edu!postnews.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.umontreal.ca!news.umontreal.ca.POSTED!not-for-mail Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 12:02:23 -0500 Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:T5hGZLoRfW2+J7unGIgJ3fE3T+I= Original-Lines: 25 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 132.204.27.213 Original-X-Trace: sv3-cxwzQp8mH8Kb1lKDOlrfMVUE5APDPjQz2NfNY54Zu6nILTkBHDAqJ+uMJuc3MZ9j7VHjbBMLNLPu+L+!Q/y7U9SyQMLnQmbARdWaeXSSKfmxwlrCM1GDEOOhaYtal8Tr026IbxfpoaE4QWfWKoA567V3itCj!DY86MWL1Qd39Hy1kLw== Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@umontreal.ca X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@umontreal.ca X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.34 Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:147836 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:43441 Archived-At: > I hate to say it, but this is a general problem with Emacs, IMO. Emacs is > not very frames friendly, especially when it comes to displaying buffers > that it traditionally thinks of as "temporary". My impression is that > those who design and test Emacs generally do not test much using > `pop-up-frames' = t (separate frames), and they tend to use functions such > as `bury-buffer' to end use of a temporary window. The result, when you > use frames, is iconification of frames and other uglinesses, when all you > want is for the frame to be deleted. Come on, Drew, you *do* know better. At least one of the core maintainers (i.e. yours truly) uses such a one-frame-per-buffer setup, so there is some testing going on. And more to the point, he specifically wants frames to be iconified rather than deleted, so this issue of deletion/iconification is 100% orthogonal. But yes, most other users of Emacs use few frames. And I tend to believe that they're more efficient for it, because unless you use a window-manager that can be controlled efficiently from the keyboard (which basically implies a tiled window-manager), managing frames is inefficient. Me? I don't even know how to touch type, so efficiency is clearly not a concern ;-) Stefan