Re: New balance-windows

[David Kastrup]

"Ehud Karni" <ehud@unix.mvs.co.il> writes:

> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 04:17:21 +0200, Lennart Borgman 
> <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> wrote:
>>
>> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>>
>> >...
>> >I think a correct algorithm should recover the split tree, then make
>> >the balancing depending on the window counts in subtrees.
>> >
>> >
>> I think Pascal is right. Though I think Ehud has made a very nice try I
>> believe the split tree must be used. There is not enough information to
>> solve the problem otherwise.
>
> I think that balancing the windows should be done based on geometry
> ONLY. What do I care how this geometry was reached ?
>
> The split tree may cause technical difficulties to the redisplay
> engine, but it should be solved there.
>
> The problem is with `enlarge-window' that can not move some edges,
> otherwise there is pure geometry algorithm to resize the windows (see
> my other reply).


Well, I can arrive at

-------------------------
|           |X          |
|           |           |
|           |           |
-------------------------
|           |           |
|           |           |
|           |           |
-------------------------

with enlarge-window from either

-------------------------
|           |X          |
|           |           |
|           |-----------|
------------|           |
|           |           |
|           |           |
|           |           |
-------------------------

or

-------------------------
|            |X         |
|            |          |
|            |          |
-------------------------
|           |           |
|           |           |
|           |           |
-------------------------

If I now do another enlarge-window, I would be surprised if the
direction of enlargement would suddenly change.

So the proper direction of enlargement _can't_ be determined without
looking at the underlying tree.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum