From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: More enhancements to fringe bitmaps. Date: 12 Feb 2004 13:07:54 +0100 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <16426.48548.766163.869974@nick.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1076584284 9379 80.91.224.253 (12 Feb 2004 11:11:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:11:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 12 12:11:20 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ArEka-0002hi-00 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:11:20 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ArEka-0002qo-00 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:11:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ArEkV-0007vQ-KD for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 06:11:15 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1ArEjT-0007ZM-Pp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 06:10:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1ArEis-0007Io-Eo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 06:10:06 -0500 Original-Received: from [212.88.64.25] (helo=mail-relay.sonofon.dk) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ArEhU-0006kQ-Kk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 06:08:08 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 81723 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2004 11:08:05 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO kfs-l.imdomain.dk.cua.dk) (213.83.150.2) by 0 with SMTP; 12 Feb 2004 11:08:05 -0000 Original-To: Nick Roberts In-Reply-To: <16426.48548.766163.869974@nick.uklinux.net> Original-Lines: 43 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:19880 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:19880 Nick Roberts writes: > > ;;; Here is an example of using a user-defined fringe bitmaps; it is a red > > ;;; circle which can be used to mark a debugger breakpoint (instead of > > ;;; using the display margin as gdba current does). > > I recall a thread about 15 months ago about the fringe versus the display > margin for breakpoint icons. However, I must admit that I've never quite > understood the need for the fringe. Well, the fringe is there, so why not use it :-) > Using the display margin does shunt the > code sideways but I've got used to that. That is one thing that I find it hard to get used to... As a side note, I also find it hard to get used to NOT being able to set a break-point with the mouse in a source buffer which is not "side-shifted". > On the other hand, the overlay arrow > already uses the fringe so it could get a bit crowded. Also, on text-only > terminals the character `B' or `b' in the display margin marks a debugger > breakpoint while the fringe is unavailable. Would the concept of the fringe > make sense for such terminals? I don't see why the two approaches cannot live side by side, i.e. let it be a user option whether the breakpoint should be in the display margin or in the fringe (when available, and it has a width >= 8 pixels): I.e. something like (if (and window-system gdb-display-break-point-in-fringe (>= (car (window-fringes)) 8)) (...) ; put icon in fringe (...) ; put icon in display margin ) -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk