[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Infrastructural complexity.
From: |
martin rudalics |
Subject: |
Re: Infrastructural complexity. |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:14:06 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) |
>> A frame embedded within a frame is something whose internal
>> representation we would have to specify and code first.
>
> Think about it: take a frame, split it into 5 windows, then mark those
> 5 as "frame(let)s" aka "window-groups".
We'd still have to specify such objects (I suppose they would get first
class rating like buffers or windows) decide how they are allowed to
tile a frame (which would be mostly a copy of the window making,
splitting, and deleting code) and provide some hooks for the window
management code to work (alternatively?) within a framelet or a frame.
martin
- Re: AW: Infrastructural complexity., (continued)
- Re: Infrastructural complexity., martin rudalics, 2009/07/24
- Re: Infrastructural complexity., Thomas Lord, 2009/07/24
- Re: Infrastructural complexity., martin rudalics, 2009/07/25
- Re: Infrastructural complexity., Stefan Monnier, 2009/07/25
- Re: Infrastructural complexity., martin rudalics, 2009/07/25
- Re: Infrastructural complexity., Stefan Monnier, 2009/07/26
- Re: Infrastructural complexity.,
martin rudalics <=
- Re: Infrastructural complexity., Thomas Lord, 2009/07/26
- Re: Infrastructural complexity., martin rudalics, 2009/07/26
- Re: Infrastructural complexity., Thomas Lord, 2009/07/26
- Re: Infrastructural complexity., martin rudalics, 2009/07/27
- Re: Infrastructural complexity., Thomas Lord, 2009/07/27
- Re: Infrastructural complexity., martin rudalics, 2009/07/27
- RE: Infrastructural complexity., Drew Adams, 2009/07/27
- Re: Infrastructural complexity., martin rudalics, 2009/07/27
- RE: Infrastructural complexity., Drew Adams, 2009/07/27
- Re: Infrastructural complexity., martin rudalics, 2009/07/28