Re: Infrastructural complexity.

[joakim]

Chong Yidong <address@hidden> writes:

>> To me, Emacs frames are an existing abstraction that is already very
>> close to how each individual panel, tearoff, and pop-up works...  One
>> example is if you look at Eclipse screen shots and the panel down the
>> left side - sometimes it is split vertically; sometimes the user gets
>> to add additional vertical splits.  That panel is, to my mind, a frame
>> -- just with this slight "subordination" addition and perhaps a
>> restriction about which buffers can be displayed there.
>
> The proofs of concept written by Joakim and Martin already handle this
> behavior.  They don't require much of a change to the usual window
> semantics, either; the only new rule is that window operations only
> effect the windows within the current window group (e.g., C-x 1 would
> not delete the windows in other groups).
>
> The only thing new that the "framelets" idea brings to the table is the
> possibility of a separate set of tool-bars.  But I don't think it's a
> big advantage considering (i) the extra engineering that would be
> required to get these extra toolbars to work, and (ii) the fact that
> Emacs is mostly keyboard-driven anyway.

More toolbars within Emacs windows would be doable with my xwidget
patch. But I agree keyboard-driven is the true Emacs flavour.

-- 
Joakim Verona