Re: Infrastructural complexity.

[Thomas Lord]

On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 10:28 +0200, martin rudalics wrote:

> The basic semantics of `window-list', namely that of returning all life
> windows must be unchanged. 

I agree.  That is part of why I'd like to see
separate frames rather than window-groups.


>  I suppose nobody wants to restrict the value
> returned by `buffer-list' to the buffers controlled by a specific
> application only.

I agree with that as well but with a caveat.
While I dislike "window groups" I think Emacs
would benefit from the introduction of "buffer
groups" and from a frame property that says 
which buffer group is preferred there.  For example,
one "buffer group" might be `control-panels'.
Commands that switch buffers would be biased to,
by default, switch only to buffers in the 
buffer group of the current frame.  This is a
generalization of the existing notion of 
"internal" buffers.



>  > Emacs already has a way to segregate groups of
>  > windows in that way: frames.   That's what
>  > gives rise to the idea that control panels are
>  > mostly just a new way to render certain frames.

> Frames still don't give you any means to control where `display-buffer'
> is going to display a buffer.

I don't see any problem with adding special rules
to `display-buffer' so that it treats framelets (frames
with a non-nil parent slot) specially.  Do you?

-t