[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: special buffer frames again

From: Stefan Monnier
Subject: Re: special buffer frames again
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 15:33:36 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux)

> I don't say that `pop-up-frames' = t should be the default value or that
> everyone should adopt it.  I do think that testing does not reflect this
> use case anywhere near as much as the nil case.

Of course.

>> And more to the point, he specifically wants frames to be
>> iconified rather than deleted,
> Yes, I'm aware that one Emacs developer does have that preference ;-).
> As you and I have discussed, this can also depend on the window manager.
> In Windows, for instance, animated iconification can be distracting, and it
> stacks stuff in the task bar (even if grouped in one Emacs icon, on XP).

Mine stack up in a "icon-manager", which is similar, except it's stacked
vertically rather than horizontally (and there's no grouping in menus when
size becomes a problem).

Maybe a more significant difference is that my window-manager is configured
to not auto-place new windows, so whenever Emacs creates a new frame I have
to manually place it.  So remembering placement is particularly important.

> I never understood your preference, but I respect it.  I'd like to stand
> over your shoulder for an hour, to see how you use Emacs.  I find it hard
> to imagine that automatic iconification of frames that are no longer in
> use would not be annoying, but I'm open to learning ;-).

I have 2 separate icon-managers: one for Emacs windows, and another for
the rest.  So my Emacs icon-manager acts as a "buffer list".  So I can just
select the relevant buffer with the mouse rather than use C-x b.

> Thought experiment: Imagine if Emacs windows were always iconified instead
> of simply disappearing when you are done with them - do you think many users
> would complain?  I'll bet that such a feature would be removed within 48
> hours.

I'm not sure I see the relation.  To me it's more like buffers: buffers can
be displayed or (not in which case they're like iconified, visible in the
buffer-list).  Some users are bothered by the ever growing list of buffers,
but they can always use C-x k when it's a problem.  And I do the same:
basically all my frames are "dedicated", so if I do C-x k, it deletes the
relevant frame.

In any case, the main problem for me with deletion of frames is the loss of
information (mostly placement).

> FWIW, the OP specifically pointed to the annoyance of iconification - he was
> looking for a way to eliminate that. Maybe you have a suggestion for him,
> explaining how you avoid this annoyance - or how you avoid being annoyed by
> it ;-)?

I don't think the problem is iconification, but it's the accumulation of
frames: so a better solution might be to reuse a special frame dedicated to
those temporary buffers.


reply via email to

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