emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Suggestions for mode-line-format changes


From: Michael Kifer
Subject: Re: Suggestions for mode-line-format changes
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:38:50 -0400

Miles Bader <address@hidden> said:
>
> Michael Kifer <address@hidden> writes:
> > If I understand you correctly, almost everything that you have described is
> > already there and is available from the menus.
> 
> Well, either you don't understand me correctly, or else the menus and
> documentation (which I did read) are designed for those smarter or more
> patient than I.  As far as I can see, _none_ of what I described is
> available.
> 
> In particular, it appears that you _always_ need a control frame/window,
> and that ediff commands _only_ work in the control frame/window (even if
> I type `M-x ediff-next-difference' in one of the buffers being diffed,
> it just gives me an error saying that).

Yes, you always need the control buffer. But you can hide it and the other
windows if you need to do something else. There is a mechanism to easily
find suspended ediff sessions and resume them. Your complaint was about the
inability to switch to other emacs jobs and I am saying that this is not the
case.

It seems that none of what you explicitly listed in your original message
is the real problem. Instead, you are complaining about the design decision
that the small control window must be present at all times.

In this regard, I think you might not have understood what I said about a
bad suggestion in your previous message. The same buffer can be involved in
different ediff sessions.  I consider this essential. You can't just start
typing commands into a buffer being diffed without first indicating which
session the buffer is involved in is current.

The UI by which you indicate this is not present in ediff, but can be
added, because each buffer already knows the set of sessions it is in.
However, I won't be the one to implement this because I think it is going
to be confusing and is not necessary.

> > If all the state is contained in *both* buffers (or 3 buffers), as you
> > suggest, then it is a *bad* idea.  The state should be in *one*
> > buffer, as it is in Ediff.  It was designed this way because it is
> > important to be able to run multiple simultaneous diffing sessions
> > that involve overlapping buffers or parts of buffers.
> 
> It sounds like the best thing to do is have all ediff state contained
> in a lisp value, which is pointed to by whatever buffers, but
> presumably this would be a big change to the code.

It is already contained in one place -- the control buffer.
It is possible to make this buffer invisible as I indicated above and
instead implement a mechanism by which you indicate the current control session.
But I think this is a bad idea. This is how emerge works, and I don't like
its interface. I want to be able to edit the buffers without typing special
commands by just moving the mouse there.



        --michael 




reply via email to

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