Re: vertical split

[Michael Schroeder]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 09:31:06PM +0000, bill wrote:
> Here's a patch against 4.0.2 that includes resizing for 'Q'.   That's 
> the easiest resize
> of course, but I don't yet see that the others will be that difficult to 
> do.

No, it's not very difficult. It's just a bit of work. How does your
patch deal with multiple horizontal/vertical Combinations, e.g. when
your screen looks like:

    +------------------------------+
    +               |              +
    +               |              +
    +               |--------------+
    +               |       |      +
    +               |       |      +
    +------------------------------+

> I'm hoping to
> get some time to look at it this week.  I have a really mundane 
> question, though...
> Is there an easier way to do these patches?  I'm maintaining my 
> developmental
> directory, in which I've made massive formatting changes and notes and 
> comments, etc,

That's exactly why there's no public writable cvs, because I don't
want massive formating changes. ;-)

Notes and comments are always welcome, though.

> where I dig around and figure out how things work, and I don't want to 
> make diffs against
> that, since there are huge amounts of white space, &c changes. When I've 
> got code that does work,

Just don't change the white space...

> I get 2 fresh copies of the original source, make the changes in one 
> (I'm trying to maintain
> the style of the surrounding code, and apologize when I get it wrong; 
> except that
> I prefer using functional declarations with types in the parameter 
> list...if no one objects
> I'd prefer to continue doing that),

No, please stay K&R conform. I don't see why we should stop to
support it, it doesn't slow down the compiled code.

> Also, this patch is against the original 4.0.2, rather than an incremental
> patch against the vert_split_diff that I put out earlier this evening.  
> Is that the
> right way to go?  or should I send incremental patches? 

Depends. In the current case (as I haven't applied your patch to
the current code yet) I prefer a patch against the old version.
But once it's applied an incremental diff is nicer ;-)

I'm also not sure if I should wait for a complete implementation
or not. What are your feelings about this?

> The more I get into this code, the more I like it.  It's a very nice 
> design.  

Thanks!

Cheers,
  Michael.

-- 
Michael Schroeder           address@hidden
main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);}