Re: Functions transpose/rotate/flip windows

[Pranshu Sharma]

martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> writes:

>>> I tried this recipe from the new node (info "(elisp) Changing
>>> Window Layouts"):
>>>
>>>> With a prefix argument and window B selected, window A would have
>>>> remained unaffected and the layout would have changed as follows:
>>>>
>>>>           ___________       ___________
>>>>          |           |     |           |
>>>>          |     A     |     |     A     |
>>>>          |___________| --> |___________|
>>>>          |     |     |     |     |     |
>>>>          |  B  |  C  |     |  C  |  B  |
>>>>          |_____|_____|     |_____|_____|
>>>
>>> But I get a different layout:
>>>
>>>             ___________       ___________
>>>            |           |     |           |
>>>            |     A     |     |     A     |
>>>            |___________| --> |___________|
>>>            |     |     |     |_____B____ |
>>>            |  B  |  C  |     |__________ |
>>>            |_____|_____|     |_____C_____|
>>
>> Same with me, I think you should move this to rotate-windows.
>
> Maybe I'll do.  I removed it for the moment.
>
>>>> -- Command: rotate-windows &optional window reverse
>>>>      This rotate windows under WINDOW in cyclic ordering.  The optional
>>>>      argument REVERSE means to rotate windows backward, in reverse
>>>>      cyclic order.
>>>>
>>>>            ___________        ___________
>>>>          |           |      |           |
>>>>          |     A     |      |     B     |
>>>>          |___________| -->  |___________|
>>>>          |     |     |      |     |     |
>>>>          |  B  |  C  |      |  C  |  A  |
>>>>          |_____|_____|      |_____|_____|
>>>
>>> I agree that 'rotate-windows' should rotate clockwise
>>> as documented here.  But the current implementation
>>> rotates counterclockwise.
>>
>> The current implimentation is direction agonistic
>>
>> Here is another instance of rotate-windows:
>>
>>     +-------+--------+            +--------+---------+
>>     |       |    B   |            |        |     A   |
>>     |    A  +--------+  ------>   |     C  +---------+
>>     |       |    C   |            |        |     B   |
>>     +-------+--------+            +--------+---------+
>>
>> Here, I think what's happening could be considered clockwise.  Where in
>> the other example, it couldn't.
>
> I need an example with the same initial layout and two different
> outcomes.  Otherwise, the examples are meaningless.
>

I don't understand, every example has one output

-- 
Pranshu Sharma <https://p.bauherren.ovh>