[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Infrastructural complexity.

From: Thomas Lord
Subject: Re: Infrastructural complexity.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:53:11 -0700

On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 18:58 +0200, martin rudalics wrote:

> We mostly agree on that.  But I cannot seriously agree on a concept that
> has frames contain windows and other frames and have some parts of Emacs
> consider those other frames as fringes.  That way madness lies.

I'm torn between replying and not replying
because I don't want to abuse your time
and I'm not hung up on "having the last word"
but... but...but.... I can't help myself:

It's not madness, darn it.  Emacs has been
gradually accumulating features that "draw
stuff in margins" both of frames and windows.
What is drawn in margins has grown more 
sophisticated over time (e.g., first just
menu-bars, then tool-bars...)  

It's not too much of a stretch to draw
frames in those margins.

And, how about this (and this is half joking
but only half, maybe less than half):

Consider attached frames in connection with the
ability to parent an arbitrary X window in an
attached frame (instead of displaying buffers
there).  Consider that in combination with
treating the X root window as a single (parent)
frame display.  By happy coincidence, you very
nearly get a complete Emacs-based tiling X window
manager - almost for free.  It's also a floor


reply via email to

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