emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Gtk tabs in emacs, new branch.


From: joakim
Subject: Re: Gtk tabs in emacs, new branch.
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:01:20 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.90 (gnu/linux)

Lennart Borgman <address@hidden> writes:

> 2010/4/10  <address@hidden>:
>> Lennart Borgman <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Jan Djärv <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lennart Borgman skrev 2010-04-10 03.47:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Stefan Monnier
>>>>> <address@hidden>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tabs may seem like a good idea to switch between different
>>>>>> window-configurations,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Switching between named window configuration seems like a good idea -
>>>>> but is tabs actually needed for that?
>>>>
>>>> Needed, no.  The best GUI for it?  Probably.
>>>
>>>
>>> So there are two parts of this:
>>>
>>> - Implementing tabs.
>>> - Better handling of window configurations, probably including naming,
>>> save and restore etc.
>>
>> Dont we have this already in "winner" or "winring" or some of the
>> existing window configuration packages?
>
>
> I don't thijnk so. I have not used winring.el, but it looks like it
> can name window configurations. However it is not a part of Emacs.
>
> None of them can save and restore window configurations from file
> which I think is essential. I am thinking about adding that to
> winsav.el. Most of it is already there, but I do not remember how far
> we got with a printed representation of window configurations. Anyone
> remember?
>

That sounds cool! There was a read representation added for hash tables
recenlty, will that help?

>> Then again, window configurations could be further enhanced by
>> finishing one of the "window group" proposals discussed some time
>> ago on this list, but that nots necesary for tabs.
>
>
> I think it is more essential than tabs. It can be used without tabs
> and it enhances tabs.

Yes, but development is stalled. Maybe I should try to revive my
proposal to the point of a bzr branch, maybe then others can bring their
proposals forward.

>
>>> Could we please move the second part to the main developing branch so
>>> we can take advantage of that part as soon as possible?
-- 
Joakim Verona




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]