From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jason Rumney Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ECB Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 22:56:15 +0100 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <40E5A52D.2000104@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1088891823 18435 80.91.224.253 (3 Jul 2004 21:57:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 21:57:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 03 23:56:54 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 1BgsVC-0005MP-00 for ; Sat, 03 Jul 2004 23:56:54 +0200 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BgsVC-0006Pk-00 for ; Sat, 03 Jul 2004 23:56:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BgsX4-00061v-Ut for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2004 17:58:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1BgsWo-00061q-IZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2004 17:58:34 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1BgsWm-00061e-Ry for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2004 17:58:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BgsWm-00061b-Ot for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2004 17:58:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [217.207.198.106] (helo=exchange.integrasp.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BgsUm-0000Gi-Nl; Sat, 03 Jul 2004 17:56:28 -0400 Original-Received: from ASSP-nospam (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by exchange.integrasp.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 3GCPV6G1; Sat, 3 Jul 2004 22:54:27 +0100 Original-Received: from 195.137.77.250 ([195.137.77.250] helo=NYAUMO) by ASSP-nospam ; 3 Jul 04 21:54:25 -0000 Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Sat, 03 Jul 2004 14:21:43 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3.50 (windows-nt) 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: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:25426 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:25426 Richard Stallman writes: > Does speedbar have any advantages over ECB? In other words, if > we replaced Speedbar with ECB, would we lose anything? > If so, could those features be added to ECB? It is a different interface which many longtime Emacs users may be used to. I don't think ECB can display in a seperate frame, though it might be easy to change it so. There may also be modes that speedbar supports that ECB does not. Speedbar seems to have special support for info for instance, which I don't think is present in ECB. > Having both ECB and Speedbar would be duplication, and in general > it is better to avoid duplication when there's no good reason for it. We already have duplication between etags and imenu. And semantic (part of CEDET, along with speedbar) offers more features over both. ECB and speedbar are just different ways of presenting the information etags, imenu and semantic can produce. Speedbar uses one buffer in a seperate frame containing a single tree heirachy. ECB uses several buffers for different types of information.