[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: idea -> internal frames?

From: Per Abrahamsen
Subject: Re: idea -> internal frames?
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:22:39 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.0.106 (i686-pc-linux-gnu)

address@hidden (Kevin A. Burton) writes:

> Wouldn't it make sense to support the concept of an "internal frame".

It already does, they are called "windows" in Emacs.

Maybe you are talking about the UI disaster of overlapping "windows in
windows" made by Microsoft for their later 16-bit versions of MS
Windows, and mostly abandoned in Windows 95 when they no longer feared
Mac look-and-feel lawsuits?

> Most other modern editors support this.  

These are not modern editors, they are badly ported 16-bit MS-Windows
applications, or immitations of these made by people with no knowledge
of UI design.

> IE the following screenshots:

IE?  Internet Explorer doesn't ;-)

> http://www.jedit.org/index.php?page=screenshot&image=14

That looks like non-overlapping windows (like Emacs), with tabs.  Nice.
I don't mind tabs, as an option.

> http://www.kdevelop.org/graphics/screenshots/1.4/HelpWindow01.jpg]


> http://www.mozillazine.org/screenshots/screensnew/modern/browser.jpg

None overlapping windows with tabs, again.

XEmacs has had tabs for some time, and although I have found no use
for them myself, I don't mind them as an option.

address@hidden (Kevin A. Burton) writes:

> Ideally these would be like real frames (AKA other-window navigates
> to it) and could also be minimized (shrunk) and maximized
> (expanded).

other-window does not navigate to other frames.

If the internal frames tries to immitate top level frames, like on MS
Windows 3, I'm going to fight it even as an option.  It was the one
thing I hated most about pre-95 MS Windows, and just the idea of Emacs
being tainted with that kind of stupidity makes me sick.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]