Re: Infrastructural complexity.

[martin rudalics]

>> 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.

But then we run into the problem again that most people consider
separate frames a non-starter.

> 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.

There's already some flair of this in `same-window-buffer-names' and
`same-window-regexps'.  We could do similar things for window groups and
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?

`display-buffer' can easily _avoid_ using a specific window for
displaying a buffer.  It's less good at _preferring_ a specific window
for that purpose.  This should change though.

martin