|
From: | Samuel El-Borai |
Subject: | Re: Emacs as WM |
Date: | Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:19:53 +0200 |
Guile-WM relies /heavily/ on its user init file. In fact, it won't do anything on
its own without one. The intention is to provide something 100%
configurable."
John Yates <address@hidden> writes:I use stumpwm, which is like emacs.
> Personally I regularly have the opposite itch: wanting to replace
> emacs's frustrating window management with an external tiling WM (in
> my case awesome).
--
>
> /john
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Matthew Plant <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>
> I was curious about what people on this list thought about
> application
> embedding in Emacs. To a degree this is already supported with
> ansi
> term, but this obviously doesn't extend to GUI applications. For
> those
> of you familiar with Plan 9, think of how programs use the window
> the
> terminal they're launched in; embedding GUI apps in Emacs would
> force
> the program to run in a window owned by Emacs and fitted into a
> buffer.
>
> The reason why I bring this up is because it would be relatively
> easy to
> do in a way that's not very platform agnostic. It's really easy to
> replace the X libarary (forgive me for not using proper
> nomenclature;
> it'd lengthen this email tenfold) window creation functions with
> one
> that extends contol over the window. The degree of integration can
> be
> controlled by the number of replaced functions. If drawn text
> wants to
> be handled specially, those functions would be replaced. Some
> method can
> be specified for switching between emacs and the application
> controlling
> user input.
>
> This has some obvious advantages; for one, Emacs automatically
> subsumes
> all editors, including more WYSIWYG editors. Not only that, but
> Emacs
> essentially becomes a window manager, which I personally would
> love. Because some apps, particular web browsers, do not always
> require
> special handling of the keyboard, switching between regular Emacs
> buffers and the special app buffers would be generally seamless. I
> could
> imagine myself typing away in one Emacs buffer, momentarily moving
> to
> the mouse to click throught some online doxygen in my web browser
> in the
> buffer to the right.
>
> There are also a lot of disadvantages to this. For one, the
> applications
> would be pretty buggy without some effort to re-implement X
> functions. Also, my co-worker points out that this would be
> incongrous
> with the current capabilities of Emacs, one of which is the easy
> transfer of text betwixt buffers. Getting these two features to
> work
> harmoniously would be kind of difficult; lots of wrappers to
> X/Gnome/whatever text writing functions would have to be made.
> However,
> copy and paste would work (I'm guessing) out of the box.
>
> I suppose it all boils down to what people want with the future of
> Emacs. Personally, I would love to turn on my computer and have
> Emacs be
> there every step of the way. I genuinely think that Emacs is a
> great
> full interface to an OS. It is not a full OS however and never
> should
> be, which is why I like this idea as an in-between.
>
> -M
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |