Re: Infrastructural complexity.

[Lennart Borgman]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Drew Adams<address@hidden> wrote:
>> >> >> Because messages missing by the user is a real problem in Emacs.
>> >> >> Most modern IDEs has no such problem since they have a special
>> >> >> `Log' tab/window.  We are gearing towards IDE so our efforts
>> >> >> will count for this goal.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not sure this argument is valid, since one can set up a
>> >> > dedicated *Messages* window in Emacs, if desired.
>> >>
>> >> Why does that help? Don't we need the protected window feature that
>> >> will (hopefully) be included (for ECB)?
>>
>> There is no "protected windows" yet, but ... It is windows that
>> are not affected by window commands that deletes windows,
>> like C-x 1, C-x 0.
>
> OK, so let's forget about ECB for the moment. You are saying, I guess, that
> unless we can protect the *Messages* window from being deleted, what Yidong
> suggested won't help (or it won't be sufficient). Is that it?

What I wanted to say is that "dedicated window" does not help that
much for this problem. However a "protected window" help (if you want
to keep it open on the same frame).


> If so, why not? I don't see why the window needs to be protected from 
> deletion.
> Can you give a concrete example of the problem?
>
> FWIW - I show *Messages* in its own frame, in a dedicated window. It tails
> itself naturally (assuming point is at eob). I can leave *Messages* showing 
> or I
> can delete its frame/window, if I want. Nothing else will delete or displace 
> it
> behind my back. I can easily adjust the frame/window height to change the 
> "tail"
> size. What more is needed? What is the problem here that what I'm already 
> doing
> doesn't solve?

Yes, that works, it is how I usually do it too.