From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dave Abrahams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Subwindow terminology Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 01:16:31 -0800 Message-ID: References: <87wrbfrxqz.fsf@gnu.org> <4EB51CCC.6040806@gmx.at> <87hb2iohql.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <4EB53A16.3030604@gmx.at> <4EB64A64.8080902@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1320571008 17083 80.91.229.12 (6 Nov 2011 09:16:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 09:16:48 +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 Nov 06 10:16:44 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RMyqK-0007SO-D3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 10:16:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52096 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RMyqJ-0004Bp-KO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 04:16:43 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49299) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RMyqG-0004Bj-VM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 04:16:42 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RMyqF-0004cp-Rd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 04:16:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-vx0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]:51974) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RMyqF-0004ci-PJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 04:16:39 -0500 Original-Received: by vcbfo13 with SMTP id fo13so654739vcb.0 for ; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 01:16:38 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.52.30.42 with SMTP id p10mr22034407vdh.127.1320570997739; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 01:16:37 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from pluto.local (129-134-58-66.gci.net. [66.58.134.129]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dw3sm23598062vdb.16.2011.11.06.01.16.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 06 Nov 2011 01:16:37 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by pluto.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 19975126C210; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 01:16:31 -0800 (AKDT) In-Reply-To: <4EB64A64.8080902@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Sun, 06 Nov 2011 09:50:44 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/23.3 (darwin) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.220.169 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:145895 Archived-At: on Sun Nov 06 2011, martin rudalics wrote: >> So sometimes a child window is not necessarily a descendant window? If >> so, that's just horrible. > > Some child windows have been adopted by their parents, others not. > What's so horrible about that? > Alternatively, we would have to demand that a fresh frame always has a > parent window with one child window which doesn't strike me as very > useful. It's a broken metaphor if a child of X is not also a descendant of X, and terribly counter-intuitive. I don't have any idea what it means for a child window to be adopted, and I don't think it matters. >> If you don't want to change the "subwindow" terminology, maybe "child >> window" should become "immediate subwindow" or "direct subwindow." > > I already regret that I started to describe the window tree at all. Do > you think that I did not consider alternative ways of doing that? I wasn't aiming my suggestion at you in particular. I don't think anything, the particular alternative I suggested might not have been considered. > Window trees are described in terms of four well known concepts - root > window, parent window, child window and subwindow. All these relations > have been in the Emacs sources for years (think of `frame-root-window', > the parent and vchild/hchild fields in the window structure, or the > routine delete_all_subwindows) and I don't have much interest changing > anything here. I didn't use the terms "ancestor" and "descendant" > because these would introduce a genealogical connotation that doesn't > exist. I'm sorry, but you did. You said "often a parent window is genealogically a descendant..." Of course, you were explaining why the term descendant was misleading, but I wouldn't have posted at all if it weren't for the fact that you used these terms together. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com