[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Windows' "split status"
From: |
Nix |
Subject: |
Re: Windows' "split status" |
Date: |
Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:36:30 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.91 (gnu/linux) |
On 15 Nov 2011, martin rudalics told this:
> What makes you think that? You can let-bind `window-nest' to t around a
> split and get an extra parent around the resulting two windows. After
> that you can split those windows any which way you want and can get an
> arbitrary number of windows within a "sub-frame". The manual explicitly
> uses the term "always" in the sentence
>
> If this variable is always non-`nil', a frame's window
> tree is a binary tree so every window but the frame's root window
> has exactly one sibling.
As a native English speaker, I'm afraid that this reads like a
non-native-English-speaker's attempt to render
> If this variable is always non-`nil', a frame's window tree is always
> a binary tree so every window but the frame's root window has exactly
> one sibling.
which unfortunately has a quite different meaning. While your
formulation is grammatically correct, I don't think it's very meaningful
to talk about a variable's value "always" being something.
Perhaps framing this in terms of a guarantee is clearer?
> If this variable's value remains non-`nil' throughout the lifetime of
> a frame, the frame's window tree is guaranteed to be a binary tree;
> every window nested below the root window will have exactly one
> sibling.
--
NULL && (void)
- Re: Windows' "split status", (continued)
- Re: Windows' "split status", martin rudalics, 2011/11/12
- Re: Windows' "split status", Chong Yidong, 2011/11/12
- Re: Windows' "split status", martin rudalics, 2011/11/13
- Re: Windows' "split status", Chong Yidong, 2011/11/13
- Re: Windows' "split status", martin rudalics, 2011/11/13
- Re: Windows' "split status", Chong Yidong, 2011/11/15
- Re: Windows' "split status", martin rudalics, 2011/11/15
- Re: Windows' "split status", Chong Yidong, 2011/11/15
- Re: Windows' "split status", Stefan Monnier, 2011/11/15
- Re: Windows' "split status", martin rudalics, 2011/11/15
- Re: Windows' "split status",
Nix <=
- Re: Windows' "split status", martin rudalics, 2011/11/23
- Re: Windows' "split status", Eli Zaretskii, 2011/11/23
- Re: Windows' "split status", martin rudalics, 2011/11/23
- Re: Windows' "split status", Eli Zaretskii, 2011/11/23
- Re: Windows' "split status", martin rudalics, 2011/11/24
- Re: Windows' "split status", Eli Zaretskii, 2011/11/24
- Re: Windows' "split status", martin rudalics, 2011/11/25
- Re: Windows' "split status", Eli Zaretskii, 2011/11/25
- Re: Windows' "split status", martin rudalics, 2011/11/25
- Re: Windows' "split status", Nix, 2011/11/25