Re: Infrastructural complexity.

[Thomas Lord]

On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 11:06 +0200, martin rudalics wrote:
> >> It wouldn't be too difficult to make Emacs windows only exist within
>  >> "attached frames" aka as frames.
>  >
>  > I agree that that would not be difficult.
>  > I think, however, that that would be a mistake
>  > in the design.  In every window system window
>  > there should be a set of Emacs windows for which
>  > the selected frame corresponds to the window
>  > system window.  If one of those Emacs windows
>  > is selected then minimizing the corresponding
>  > frame (etc.) should have its effect on the window
>  > system window (and by extension on any "attached
>  > frames").
> 
> The `window-frame' of any window would be an attached frame that has an
> associated primary window aka window-system window.  Why would that be a
> mistake in the design?

Let's talk it through.  Perhaps you can change
my mind though I still think it is a mistake.

In your system, a window system window corresponds
to a frame for which most properties are ignored.
The edit area and all control panels are separate
frames, nested in that outer frame.

In mine, the edit area frame is the frame of
the window system window while the control 
panels are separate frames, nested in that 
edit area frame.

Consider a command like `delete-frame'.

If invoked within a control panel, we'd like 
it to kill the windows in the control panel
and make the control panel invisible.  (Perhaps
its frame object is then a dead frame or perhaps
not.)

If invoked in the edit area, we'd like it to 
kill all of the frames found within the window 
system window, and for that window system window
to go away.

How can differences like that most naturally be 
explained?  I think it's by making the window system
window frame and the edit area frame one in the same
thing.

Similarly, let's suppose that in a control panel
I turn on the toolbar.  We want the toolbar to appear
in just that control panel.

On the other hand, turning on a toolbar in the edit
area should create a toolbar that runs across the
entire window system window.

So, again, it's natural to identify the edit area
frame with the window system window frame.



>  > The "edit area" frame should, at least from
>  > the perspective of elisp and interactive
>  > commands, be "the frame which corresponds to
>  > the window system window".

> If the edit-area frame is an attached frame it doesn't correspond to a
> window-system window.  If it's a primary frame the size of its windows
> don't sum up to its size.  What am I missing?

It doesn't sum to the size of the frame, that's true.
Isn't it already the case, however, that the window
widths and heights don't necessarily add up to the 
full size of the frame?  What are you worried about?

-t




> martin