[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: When do you prefer windows instead of frames? Was: When do you prefe
From: |
Jude DaShiell |
Subject: |
Re: When do you prefer windows instead of frames? Was: When do you prefer frames instead of windows? |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:08:58 -0500 (EST) |
For those of you who find keyboards easier than mice to use have you
ever tried using a track bal and if so how do you grade that in
comparison to use of the mouse?
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, MBR wrote:
> Be very careful with the phrase "use ... as easily as you can use ...". There
> are some people out there who consider pointing with the mouse easy. I, on
> the other hand find it easier to use the keyboard. The keyboard, along with
> Emacs' wide array of cursor positioning commands, gives me the ability to
> quickly and easily get to specific precise positions - at least precise based
> on character position in a character cell terminal or editor window.
>
> There are probably other areas where different Emacs users would have
> diametrically opposite views on what they consider to be easy.
>
> Mark Rosenthal
>
> On 11/25/14 10:46 AM, Drew Adams wrote:
> > > > I would ask an opposite question: IF you could use Emacs frames
> > > > as easily as you can use Emacs windows, in what scenarios would
> > > > you prefer using Emacs windows, and why?
> > > For supporting tasks only: Imagine you are starting from a full-screen
> > > window and want to see temporarily a variable definition in a second
> > > window while still hacking away. The advantage is that window
> > > operations, like C-x } enlarge-window-horizontally,
> > > delete-other-windows-vertically,... operate simultaneously on all
> > > windows. In such situations it seems to me much more convenient to
> > > use windows than set it up with frames.
> > Again - but what "IF you could use Emacs frames as easily as you
> > can use Emacs windows"? That's the question.
> >
> > Pop up a *Help* frame instead of a *Help* window to show help. Hit
> > `C-x 0' to get rid of that frame when you're done. You probably do
> > not need to resize the frame (e.g., if the frame is automatically
> > fit to the size of just the *Help* text). But if you do, then use
> > keys to resize it, just as you would for a window.
> Yes, but typing C-x o is something I can do easily because it involves two
> fingers on the left hand immediately followed by one finger on the right hand,
> without fingers my ever having to leave home position. C-x 5 o, on the other
> hand involves my typing two successive characters with my left hand before I
> can switch to the right hand for the "o". And, worse than that, "x" is in the
> bottom row but "5" is in the top row, which means that even though my fingers'
> average position is over home position, they're jumping Saturday as far as
> they ever do on vertically.
>
> All this means that my mental focus on the code I'm writing doesn't get
> distracted when I type C-x 0, but when I type C-x 5 o, I have to take some of
> my focus away from the code to make sure I don't miss the "5" after the "x".
> >
> > IOW, think past what you can do with a window (resize, move, control
> > where it pops up, etc.) that you think you cannot easily do with a
> > frame now.
> >
> > I certainly agree that if frames are not made as convenient to
> > interact with (i.e., the same kinds of operations you use on
> > windows) then Emacs windows remain useful. But if Emacs *did*
> > support such operations with frames, out of the box,...
> >
> >
>
>
jude <jdashiel@shellworld.net>
Twitter: @jdashiel
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: When do you prefer windows instead of frames? Was: When do you prefer frames instead of windows?,
Jude DaShiell <=