[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ECB
From: |
klaus.berndl |
Subject: |
RE: ECB |
Date: |
Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:48:10 +0100 |
Hello,
Sorry for reactivating such an old thread but the latest cvs-Emacs pops this
up for me:
I saw, that balance-window has been completely reimplemented on base of
a new c-level-function `window-tree'...fine, but:
Tools like ECB makes a lot of handstands to exclude some windows (the
special ECB-windows which display stuff like dirs, files and file-
contents from being deleted by command like delete-other-windows etc...
Or in general: To exclude these special ECB-windos from being taken into
account in general (e.g. also by count-windows, walk-windows in special
situations).
This is done by advices which are save and only active when ECB is active...
Richard, do you remember this thread - see below?
We had discussed how to prevent some special windows from being deleted?
Now i think we would need a more general mechanism which would also prevent
such windows from being included in the tree returned by `window-tree' so
all features based on new `window-tree' (AFAIK currently only `balance-window')
can ignore this window from their doing....
I think this is not necessary for the current Emacs-release but a least then,
when
ECB should be integrated into Emacs (at least if this is intended ;-)
But for now: Are there some work-arounds possible how to exclude some windows
from being "balanced" (means ajusted) by the new balance-window?
In the old one an advice for `walk-windows' was enough which simply does not
walk through these special windows... But now, `walk-windows' is not used but
`window-tree'...
Any suggestions?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Ciao,
klaus
Richard Stallman wrote:
> >Do you think that this feature should be integrated into Emacs
> at the >C level?
>
> Hmm, depends. IMO Emacs is not really designed for having a
> window-layout where some windows should be permanent and should
> always contain some certain stuff (like the special
> ECB-browsing-tree-buffers/windows) and the rest of the windows
> which can be deleted and created by the user (like the
> editing-area of ECB).
>
> Not now; that's why I'm suggesting to change it.
>
> BTW: If you remember we had already a short discussion about the
> adding a mechanism (flag) to the c-level so a window can be marked
> to be excluded from delete-other-window... please apologize but i
> haven't still found enough time to implement this.
>
> I remembered having that discussion, but not who I had discussed it
> with. It sounds like ECB has implemented the same feature (more or
> less) at Lisp level. Do you agree that C level would be the best
> place to put it?
>
>
> Example: ECB advices the `display-buffer' so it displays all
> "compilation"-buffers (buffers which fulfill criterias a user has
> defined so they should be displayed in the
> compilation-output-window of ECB) in the
> compilation-output-window of ECB (an optional but then permanent
> window at the bottom of the ecb-frame), all special ecb-buffers
> in the assigned ecb-window and for the rest of the buffers it
> uses the edit-area of the ecb-frame as if this area would be the
> whole frame. Works save and like a charm but needs for this a big
> and - i admit - complex advice. So IMHO it would make sense for
> some mechanisms (needed by ECB) to be included in the Emacs-core
> because IMHO it is always better - regardless of the code-quality
> and the saveness of an advive of an internal central function
> like display-buffer - to implement this in the emacs-core instead
> with an advice.
>
> That's exactly what I think. In fact, we want to avoid defining any
> advice in Emacs itself.
>
> The question is if it should be at the c-level
> or at the lisp-level?
>
> It should be implemented within display-buffer, which means, in C
> level.
>
> To rewrite display-buffer in Lisp is a separate idea. I'm not
> against it, if someone wants to do it. Not right now; now our focus
> is on getting a release to work. But if you want to do that, it
> would be ok, and we could install that just before installing ECB.
- RE: ECB,
klaus.berndl <=
- Re: ECB, Stefan Monnier, 2006/03/07
- Re: ECB, Richard Stallman, 2006/03/07
- RE: ECB, klaus.berndl, 2006/03/07
- Re: ECB, Richard Stallman, 2006/03/07
- RE: ECB, klaus.berndl, 2006/03/08
- Re: ECB, Richard Stallman, 2006/03/09
- RE: ECB, klaus.berndl, 2006/03/08
- Re: ECB, Stefan Monnier, 2006/03/08